jury nullification
By anders pearson 03 Mar 2003
a coworker of mine was just on a jury for a drug possession case. he expressed some regret that they convicted despite his feelings that drug possession should not be illegal.
<p>for years, my dad has been ranting about the concept of ‘Jury Nullification’. the short version of which is that juries don’t have to convict someone of breaking a law that they feel is unjust even if the facts of the case clearly indicate guilt. if juries consistently nullify convictions under certain laws, those laws don’t tend to last long (the Fugitive Slave Act and Prohibition were ended in large part because of jury nullification). in times past, juries used to be explicitly informed of this concept before they were asked to try a case. during the vietnam war however, things changed and they stopped informing juries about jury nullification. </p>
<p>so when i spoke with my coworker about this concept, i was a little surprised to hear that they had been explicitly told that their duty as jurors was to decide based on the facts alone and that they could not take their own politics into account (probably something worded similarly to <a href="http://www.bostonbar.org/dd/patjuryinst/CRPJ0LX5.HTM">this</a>).</p>
<p>a google search for “jury nullification” will turn up dozens of pages discussing the idea. what i’m looking for is something more official. i want to know where to find the actual legal precedents behind jury nullification (as far as i can tell, it is considered ‘Common Law’, ie, it was common practice when the Constitution was drafted but was not explicitly put into it) and what the current state of jury nullification is. if, as everything i can find seems to indicate, jury nullification is still allowed, how can courts justify purposely misleading jurors by telling them that they have to convict based on evidence alone? </p>
<p>the closest i’ve come yet seems to be this article wherein a judge <a href="http://www.levellers.org/jrp/orig/jrp.juryrevolt.htm">warns other judges and prosecutors</a> about the impending dangers of <a href="http://nowscape.com/fija/fija_us.htm">fully informed jurors</a>. he’s clearly against jury nullification, but provides the best legal background i’ve seen yet that establishes it as a right of jurors. eg, he mentions <a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=254&invol=135"> <span class="caps">HORNING</span> v. <span class="caps">DISTRICT</span> OF <span class="caps">COLUMBIA</span> , 254 U.S. 135 (1920)</a> in which an instance of jury nullification is upheld: “…but the jury were allowed the technical right, if it can be called so, to decide against the law and the facts…”</p>
<p>anyway, i’m not a lawyer. that’s why i will be very grateful if someone can get me a reference to the actual legal status of jury nullification (preferably as interpreted by an actual lawyer and not someone with an agenda one way or the other).</p> Tags: jury nullification law