That might have been the case years ago. Notice that a mixed jury found OJ Simpson, black, not guilty of killing a white woman and a white man, despite his obvious but not proven guilt.
Everyone of the comments about juries suggests “but he public at large can be so stupid”. However, many of the comments I read from people who actually served on juries was that in general, people took their jobs seriously, did their job correctly, and performed in the way we’d want juries to perform. They were not stupid.
I’ve served on several juries, and felt everyone took their duties seriously and acted professionally.
However, nobody argued that we should forget about what the law said, and instead hold the defendant guilty or innocent depending on our personal prejudices.
On the one hand, I think it is fine for jurors to refuse to convict people if they are morally certain that a conviction would be outrageous, even if under the law and the facts the defendant is guilty. On the other hand, the jury shouldn’t consider themselves free to set aside the law on a whim, because to do so means an end to democracy.
Wow, don’t be afraid to voice your prejudice. Actually, today the most used nullification was mentioned in my earlier post… Today in Kentucky, jurors often refuse to convict under the marijuana-prohibition laws.
To be fair, that is the downside of jury nullification - that the jury will enforce community standards that may not meet others’ definition of “justice”.
Ever hear “better 100 guilty men go free than one innocent man in jail”?
I understand the risk of my friends all being on the jury and letting me go free because of it, though my guilt is clear, but balanced against the threat of the state making things illegal that the community doesn’t believe people should go to jail for, I agree with nullification.
So, why did some people not find runaway slaves guilty and return them to their masters?
Why do the people often acquit defendants who are obviously guilty of the crime charged?
The state can make any law they like. There is no litmus test or approval by the voters required. The last line of defense against the tyranny of the state is trial by jury, because if the community hears the case and doesn’t believe the accused should go to jail for this crime, they can vote not guilty.
Many laws are passed in hysteria (or bought and paid for) when some pressure group wants “immediate action”. Or, mores may change from generation to generation leaving inappropriate laws that are selectively (unfairly) enforced.
Just because it made it into law does not mean the overwhelming majority of the community agrees.
For example, the largest group of people going onto the sex offender list nowadays - underage teen boys. Not because they are pervs (any more than other men) but because their normal partner of choice tends to qualify them for legal action at 13 to 17, while a 20yo cannot be charged for sex with their age peers. That was not what the law was meant for…
Apropos of probably nothing, but I can’t help but think back to Matthew McConaughey’s closing argument in **A Time to Kill **, which is about as close as you can get to asking for jury nullification without straight up saying it. I suspect in a less Grisham-y world, the Judge might politely request an audience with Mr. McConaughey in chambers after that little speech.
Because those specific people disagreed with the law. You can’t seriously be arguing that 12 people (or as few as six, in some jurisdictions) is a statistically significant sample.
I grok your argument about nullification being the last line of defense, but this stuff about the jury representing “the community” is rubbish.
Probably not - under normal circumstances an acquittal by a jury is the end of the matter, and there’s nothing for the state to appeal. The only excpetion I’m aware of is when the jury was bribed, extorted or otherwise coerced such that the defendant was never in actual jeopardy.
It’s not really possible. The jury’s reasoning can’t be an issue on appeal. The legal sufficiency of the evidence can be (ie., could a reasonably jury have concluded what they did), but only for the defense; the state can’t appeal a not guilty verdict in and of itself.
So, I’m juror number seven. During deliberations I mention nullification as an interesting philosophical topic. We have also discussed the weather and local sports teams. Juror number nine mentions our nullification discussion to his honor.
But if the juror truly believed that jury nullification was legally valid she/he wouldn’t have any problem being open about it, right? There must be at least one vocal proponent of “Jury Nullification” that has been brave enough to apply the process.