Jury Nullification

Jury Nullification is the principle that a jury can or should ignore the law in a trial setting. That is, even if the facts of the case show that a person should be convicted or acquitted, or a person should be found liable or not liable, that a jury should be free to disregard the law and render a decision according to their own beliefs, regardless of what the law may be.

I am interested in hearing peoples' opinions on the subject of Jury Nullification, and why they hold those opinions. As a practicing attorney, I have mixed feelings on the issue, but I would like to hear individual tropers' thoughts and feelings. Should a Jury be free to ignore the law if they believe the law is wrong?

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

My main question would be who gets to decide if a jury's decision was invalid? I've never been on a jury, but my understanding was that they usually deliberate on the issue in a room with no other people, and with no official record of the proceedings. Given that, how can anyone not on the jury be qualified to say why the jury made the decision it did?

"It takes an idiot to do cool things, that's why it's cool" - Haruhara Haruko

A cool video about the subject:

I guess CGP was exaggerating a bit a bout the secrecy of the concept? Anyway, it is a cool video that explain what Jury Nullification is in a easy to understand way.

edited 17th Sep '14 11:52:37 PM by Heatth

I also have a legal background. And, like lawyerdude, I have mixed feelings about jury nullification. I suppose we should start with the question he posed:

Should a jury be free to do so? Yes. The jury has a right to come to whatever conclusion it wishes for whatever reasons it wishes. So, if your 12 jurors decide "we think X is bad law, we're not sending someone to the clink for that", then they have every right to ignore the law as it stands. If you constrain the decision-making ability of a jury, then you might as well not have one at all. Also, even if you were to allow the prosecution to appeal cases on the grounds that juries made their decision for "the wrong reasons", you run into a problem of enforcement; to say nothing of the rights issue.

Should juries be told they have this power? Well that's the rub. If the judge appends to his charge to the jury "also, if you think your elected representatives have screwed the pooch on this one, you can choose to ignore the law entirely" then every case becomes not just about determining the facts but also convincing the jury that the law itself is worthwhile. "What's wrong with that?" you might ask. Well, a criminal court is not the proper venue to do it. Jury nullification doesn't change bad law, just makes it selectively enforced. For instance, the creators of The Wire have urged juries to nullify drug convictions as a protest against the War on Drugs. An admirable aim in itself, but I suspect the main beneficiaries of such a campaign won't be black kids from poor backgrounds (ie, the individuals upon whom falls 99% of the impact of the WoD) but white college boys too thick to throw away their blunt when they hear sirens.

edited 18th Sep '14 12:59:43 AM by Achaemenid

Schild und Schwert der Partei

I'm not American, and I know next to nothing about the American judicial system; but it seems quite bizarre to me that twelve citizens or so have the power of overruling laws if they so choose. Yeah, I get that sometimes laws are wrong and should be ignored; but to do so by means of a process involving a handful of non-elected citizens operating in secrecy strikes me as near-ideal grounds for abuse.

But isn't the decision-making ability of a jury already constrained anyway? Correct me if I am wrong, but a jury cannot quite go "We rule that the defendant is innocent, but the Judge is guilty. Also, everyone in this building who is wearing pants is ordered to remove them, put them on their heads and run thirty laps around the block", right?

edited 18th Sep '14 2:25:15 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

A jury can only say guilty or not guilty for the defendant. They have no power beyond that. Nullification is where the jury makes their decision by basically ignoring the evidence, acquitting someone despite evidence or finding someone guilty despite the lack thereof. The video does an awesome job of describing the whole thing, including drawbacks of having nullification around.

The biggest problem I have with that is their "belief" that the law is wrong. The number of people who believe things contradicted by evidence certainly seem to outnumber the people willing to change their beliefs when proven wrong.

edited 18th Sep '14 1:07:31 PM by BlueNinja0

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw

Not sure if trolling...

Schild und Schwert der Partei

The example was intentionally silly; but my point was serious — the decision-making abilities of a jury are already constrained, in that they can only say whether they find defendant guilty or not-guilty. They do not have any power beyond that. Similarly, the jury is not allowed to auction their decision, taking bribes and deciding according to who pays more.

Thus, it seems to me, the abstract principle that "the power of the jury cannot be constrained" does not work as a defence of jury nullification — members of the jury are already subject to constraints, and not allowing them to decide against the law would simply add one more constraint. Whether this constraint is or is not advisable, I think, should be decided on pragmatic, practical grounds — what would the consequences of that constraint be? Would they be desirable or undesirable? — and not by appealing to abstract principles.

Just my two cents, of course.

edited 18th Sep '14 4:04:22 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

A courtroom is a place where only the law should have the final word. Whether said laws are just is something to be discussed elsewhere. If you give the people passing judgement the power to ignore the law at will, you might as well not have a law in the first place.

But if the law itself is bad (as in, it allows, say, Lawful Evil behavior) and if ignoring that "evil" law would have a better moral outcome, then I say that law should be ignored in favor of the moral high-ground.

That's not to say all trials should be decided based on morals (especially if the moral gap is small, between the outcomes) but I think morality should be considered.

Award-winning screenwriter. Directed some movies. Trying to earn a Creator page. I do feedback here.

That strikes me as an infringement on separation of powers. Imho the courtroom is for applying the law. Changing the law is the job of the legislative. The people should decide what is and what isn't the law. Not some unelected, random schmucks. If people find a law immoral than change the law. Otherwise it undermines the rule of law.

I think the system works as is, as i agree that it would be dangerous to clue the juries in on it, but it's also good that they have such a power.

Granted, it can get into very, very morally grey area like in A Time To Kill, or be used as it has been historically to let off white guys who killed black people (the reverse of A Time To Kill), but its a good power for protest as LONG as it is not widely known, as then it will simply be abused.

What about Precedent?

Keep Rolling On

Jury verdicts do not alter precedent. That's not their job.

Observing the difference between those from civilian-law countries and those from common-law countries is interesting.

edited 18th Sep '14 7:35:01 AM by Achaemenid

Schild und Schwert der Partei

What outcome or consequence is jury nullification causing that constraining is intended to solve? If the only issue is philosophical ("Juries shouldnt have the right to do that!" vs "Yes, they should!"), well, frankly, there are more important issues to address. Is there a case where significant injustice occurred as a result of jury nullification?

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

According to the video I posted earlier, apparently there have been cases of southern jury refusing to convict lynch mobs. That count as an injustice in my book.

Anyway, if I understood the issue right, you can't actually prevent Jury Nullification from being a thing. The whole point of a Jury is they make the decision and so if you start questioning what they decide then might as well not have one in the first place.

What if the Jury can't decide at all?^note  It's a re-trial, isn't it?

Keep Rolling On

That's a mistrial and they do it all again with a new jury.

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

Things like this remind me of the people who say that the best way to protest the criminal justice system is to never plea bargain. The jury trial system is so unwieldy that if it were actually used for the full volume of criminal cases brought, everything would come crashing down (because the right to a speedy trial would mean that the state would have to start dismissing charges en masse, if all defendants demanded a jury trial)

There's a prisoners dilemma game scenario if I ever saw one... literally!

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

Indeed. If you all cooperate with each other, many of you could get off scot-free, but that only works if "everyone" demands the jury trial, otherwise you screw yourself.

I remember a few years ago when my city passed a ban on smoking in bars and restaurants. Violation was punishable by a fine of $10.00 on the individual, or $50.00 per offense for any bar or restaurant that allowed it. I pointed out that, if a smoker was ticketed by a police officer, they had a right to a trial in the municipal court and, if convicted they would be fined $10.00. If they wanted, they could petition the Circuit Court for a re-trial and, if convicted, they would be fined $10.00. I thought it would be incredibly amusing if, as a form of protest, a whole bunch of people decided to break the law at once and clog up the court's docket for months. "Sadly", it never happened.

The question of Jury Nullification usually shows up in the context of acquitting people of a crime because they believe that what they did shouldn't be illegal. As a practical matter, of course, the jury room is a black box, and jurors can't be held liable for making the "wrong" decision.

Juries are instructed by the judge that they must reach their decision according to the evidence presented at the trial, and not on their own personal convictions or speculation.

Now on the other hand, juries are generally not (to my knowledge) told that they have the right to disregard or disbelieve the evidence that is presented to them. The role of the jury is to determine the facts, and even if a hundred trustworthy people testify that they saw the defendant do it, they technically are free to ignore every word they say. "Well, maybe they were mistaken."

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

If all those people intentionally clog up the court system, wouldn't that be contempt of court? Isn't that even MORE severe of a punishment?

Award-winning screenwriter. Directed some movies. Trying to earn a Creator page. I do feedback here.

No. Contempt is deliberately refusing to obey a legitimate judicial order, or causing a disruption or something like that. Remember, in a criminal case, the burden is on the prosecutor to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. A defendant accused of smoking, or any other crime, has absolutely no responsibility whatsoever, other than to show up in court when ordered and pay his fine.

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

If people could be charged with contempt of court for asking for a trial...