# Jury nullifaction: Do jurors know about it? How often is it used? What else is like it? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [February 25, 2013, 10:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jury-nullifaction-do-jurors-know-about-it-how-often-is-it-used-what-else-is-like-it/651337 "2013-02-25T10:38:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jury-nullifaction-do-jurors-know-about-it-how-often-is-it-used-what-else-is-like-it/651337/21 "2013-03-01T02:46:15Z")
> [@usedtobe](#): > > If I am called to serve, and the prosecutor (I’m guessing the Defense doesn’t care as much) ask “Can you fairly and impartially apply the law, as stated by this Court, without prejudice?” > (I’m guessing that is pretty much what the relevant Q looks like) and I say say “Yes”. In this case “Yes” means “I can; don’t bet that I will”. > > I then espouse an alternate theory of justice as soon as the door is closed and steadfastly refuse to vote guilty “because xxxxxxx shouldn’t be a crime” or “this defendant, this time, warrants a pass”, could I reasonably play the game that “I was asked if I could: I was NOT asked if I would”? > > Note: I am leaving beside my Freeman Status because you folks are not sophisticated enough to comprehend 😃 In my best estimate such a non-specific answer would be general enough to protect you – see the Colorado hemp juror whose case I use in the Staff Report. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 5:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jury-nullifaction-do-jurors-know-about-it-how-often-is-it-used-what-else-is-like-it/651337/22 "2013-03-01T05:38:00Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > 1. The typical grand jury hears the cases the DA brings before them and determines whether to lay an indictment for a felony charge (and occasionally lays one for a misdemeanor where they feel a felony charge is unwarrranted). You occasionally hear of grand jury investigations. What powers do grand juries have beyond the review of alleged felonies? In CA a (Civil) GJ can remove a Public Officer from office. They investigate waste, fraud & mismanagement by various government entities within their County, including such large scale stuff like the Board of Supervisors and down to Water Districts. They have pretty wide ranging investigative powers. In many cases, however, they turn out to be a Paper Tiger. Still, few politicos deliberately cross one. It’s better to smile, cooperate, say you’ll take their report under advisement and in the end do very little. > **[Civil Grand Jury | Superior Court of California | County of Santa Clara](https://santaclara.courts.ca.gov/CGJ)** > > Beware of Jury Duty Scam! For more information, click to read: Jury Scam Alert About the : Current Members Grand Jury Investigations Submitting a Confidential Complaint Grand Jury Reports History Functions Remuneration Qualifications Selection... ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jury-nullifaction-do-jurors-know-about-it-how-often-is-it-used-what-else-is-like-it/651337/23 "2013-03-01T18:33:30Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But doing this is typically violative of the oath they took as jurors and of the instructions given to them by the judge. Can a potential jury member refuse to take the oath and avoid jury duty? I guess I am suggesting if the oath is forced via some threat (e.g. contempt of court and a fine and/or jail time) it is not much of an oath. Then again if people can simply skip out on jury duty by saying they do not want to take the oath that seems too simple. I would have a real problem following this [juror’s oath](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juror%27s_oath#United_States). Given that am I violative of the oath if I give it under duress and then break that oath? ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jury-nullifaction-do-jurors-know-about-it-how-often-is-it-used-what-else-is-like-it/651337/24 "2013-03-01T18:37:16Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I would have a real problem following this [juror’s oath](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juror%27s_oath#United_States). Given that am I violative of the oath if I give it under duress and then break that oath? Is it because of the mention of god? They’ll give you a version without it. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jury-nullifaction-do-jurors-know-about-it-how-often-is-it-used-what-else-is-like-it/651337/25 "2013-03-01T18:41:27Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > Two questions _related to_ but not identical with the OP: > > 1. Do the “scurrilous adverbs” have legal validity? E.g., the typical criminal charge alleges that “on or about 12 November 2012 the accused did criminally, feloniously, intentionally (or negligently) commit the crime of Mopery in the Second Degree by [description of act].” Might a jury find that the accused did commit the act described but did not do it with _mens rea_ (or criminal negligence) and hence falls short of what was charged by not doing it in the manner the adverbs describe? In an American court, the judge will typically give you the elements of the crime and tell you specifically what the relevant findings must be. If there is an intent element, it will be set forth. > [@](#): > > 1. The typical grand jury hears the cases the DA brings before them and determines whether to lay an indictment for a felony charge (and occasionally lays one for a misdemeanor where they feel a felony charge is unwarrranted). You occasionally hear of grand jury investigations. What powers do grand juries have beyond the review of alleged felonies? So far as I understand, the grand jury isn’t exercising an independent power. It’s working at the direction of the prosecutor. “Investigation” might mean nothing more than viewing the evidence that the prosecutor lays before it. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jury-nullifaction-do-jurors-know-about-it-how-often-is-it-used-what-else-is-like-it/651337/26 "2013-03-01T18:43:21Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > Is it because of the mention of god? They’ll give you a version without it. Nope. In particular: “It is your duty to apply the law as I explain it to you, regardless of the consequences.” I think it is entirely relevant to the jury to note that the (otherwise good as shown in court) kid busted for smoking a joint is on a third strike and will be sent to jail for 20 years. I may well agree he is 100% guilty of smoking that joint but I wholly disagree with the punishment and could not, in good conscience, find him guilty knowing he would face that punishment. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jury-nullifaction-do-jurors-know-about-it-how-often-is-it-used-what-else-is-like-it/651337/27 "2013-03-01T19:34:33Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Nope. > > In particular: > > “It is your duty to apply the law as I explain it to you, regardless of the consequences.” > > I think it is entirely relevant to the jury to note that the (otherwise good as shown in court) kid busted for smoking a joint is on a third strike and will be sent to jail for 20 years. > > I may well agree he is 100% guilty of smoking that joint but I wholly disagree with the punishment and could not, in good conscience, find him guilty knowing he would face that punishment. I have a problem too with that. Not for the same reason but for having to follow the judge’s explanation of the law if it conflicts with my reading of it. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jury-nullifaction-do-jurors-know-about-it-how-often-is-it-used-what-else-is-like-it/651337/28 "2013-03-01T23:04:18Z")
> [@](#): > > “It is your duty to apply the law as I explain it to you…” But once you finish explaining it to me then,are no longer explaining it, I can do as I see fit. Anyone can play grammar games. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jury-nullifaction-do-jurors-know-about-it-how-often-is-it-used-what-else-is-like-it/651337/29 "2013-03-01T23:51:19Z")
Yeah, only that judge isn’t playing games. If you have an objection to the law, then your duty as a citizen is to fight against it politically. Your duty as a juror is to apply the law that is given to you. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2013, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jury-nullifaction-do-jurors-know-about-it-how-often-is-it-used-what-else-is-like-it/651337/30 "2013-03-02T01:19:59Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > Yeah, only that judge isn’t playing games. If you have an objection to the law, then your duty as a citizen is to fight against it politically. Your duty as a juror is to apply the law that is given to you. That is by no means a universally held opinion. Indeed it seems to have not been the opinion of our FFs when setting up our legal system. I posted this a couple years ago. Seems appropriate to post it again: > [@](#): > > Suppose that, after all the precautions taken to avoid it, a difference of sentiment takes place between the judges and the jury, with regard to a point of law: suppose the law and the fact to be so closely interwoven, that a determination of one must, at the same time, embrace the determination of the other: suppose a matter of this description to come in trial before a jury—what must the jury do?—The jury must do their duty, and their whole duty: they must decide the law as well as the fact. > > This doctrine is peculiarly applicable to criminal cases; and from them, indeed, derives its peculiar importance. When a person is to be tried for a crime, the accusation charges against him, not only the particular fact which he has committed, but also the motive, to which it owed its origin, and from which it receives its complexion. The first is neither the only, nor the principal object of examination and discussion. On the second, depends the innocence or criminality of the action. The verdict must decide not only upon the first, but also, and principally, upon the second: for the verdict must be coextensive and commensurate with the charge. > > It may seem, at first view, to be somewhat extraordinary, that twelve men, untutored in the study of jurisprudence, should be the ultimate interpreters of the law, with a power to overrule the directions of the judges, who have made it the subject of their long and elaborate researches, and have been raised to the seat of judgment for their professional abilities and skill. > > But a deeper examination of the subject will reconcile us to what, at first, may appear incongruous. In criminal cases, the design, as has been already intimated, is closely interwoven with the transaction; and the elucidation of both depends on a collected view of particulars, arising not only from the testimony, but also from the character and conduct of the witnesses, and sometimes also from the character and conduct of the prisoner. Of all these, the jury are fittest to make the proper comparison and estimate; and, therefore, it is most eligible to leave it to them, after receiving the direction of the court in matters of law, to take into their consideration all the circumstances of the case, the intention as well as the facts, and to determine, upon the whole, whether the prisoner has or has not been guilty of the crime, with which he is charged. > > SOURCE: [Collected Works of James Wilson](http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2074&chapter=166640&layout=html&Itemid=27) (James Wilson signed the Declaration of Independence, helped draft the US Constitution and was one of the six original Supreme Court justices among other bonafides) ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2013, 5:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jury-nullifaction-do-jurors-know-about-it-how-often-is-it-used-what-else-is-like-it/651337/31 "2013-03-02T05:46:05Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > Yeah, only that judge isn’t playing games. If you have an objection to the law, then your duty as a citizen is to fight against it politically. Your duty as a juror is to apply the law that is given to you. No. Your duty is to ensure the system of justice performs in a fair and unbiased manner. The purpose of the jury is to ensure that not only does the government think an offense is committed, but that society at large considers the crime to have been committed and deserving of conviction. The classic case of jury nullification I like to cite is [Dr. Henry Morgentaler](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Morgentaler) who brought Canadian abortion law into the 20th Century and established the supremacy of jury decisions in Canada. > [@](#): > > In January 1976, the federal Justice Minister, Ron Basford, started a third trial against Morgentaler, on the first set of charges. On 18 September 1976, the trial ended in an acquittal by a different jury. This was his third jury acquittal in Quebec.[21] > > In 1976, the Parti Québécois took power in Quebec. They realized that the abortion law could not be enforced if juries would not convict, so they dropped the remaining charges. On Saturday, 11 December 1976, the new Justice Minister, Marc-Andre Bedard, dropped the charges against Morgentaler and other doctors and announced that there would be no further trials for clinic abortions in Quebec.[21][22][27] This was just in time to prevent a fourth Morgentaler trial from starting on Monday.[27] ---
**Author:** ![Senegoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senegoid/32/6606_2.png) [@Senegoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senegoid)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2013, 9:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jury-nullifaction-do-jurors-know-about-it-how-often-is-it-used-what-else-is-like-it/651337/32 "2013-03-02T09:42:20Z")
Here’s a twist I’ve wondered about. Suppose the judge has explained the law to the jury. Now the jury is deliberating. And now suppose the jury, or just one member, feels he doesn’t understand the law (as described by the judge), or doesn’t agree with the law (as he understands the judge’s description). Can the jury reasonably ask the judge to provide them with the actual text of the law? (Or would this happen routinely anyway?) I’ve been under the impression that the jury isn’t normally given the actual text of the law to read. They just get an explanation from the judge. Can the jury, during deliberation, demand to read the actual text of the law in question? How would a judge respond to such a request? If I were on a jury, and I wasn’t satisfied with the law as given by the judge, I think I would insist on reading the law myself. If the judge refused that, I think I would not have a qualm about refusing to convict under that law. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2013, 11:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jury-nullifaction-do-jurors-know-about-it-how-often-is-it-used-what-else-is-like-it/651337/33 "2013-03-02T11:05:14Z")
> [@Senegoid](#): > > And now suppose the jury, or just one member, feels he doesn’t understand the law (as described by the judge), or doesn’t agree with the law (as he understands the judge’s description). Can the jury reasonably ask the judge to provide them with the actual text of the law? (Or would this happen routinely anyway?) I do not know what the judge _must_ provide to the jury but certainly juries can (and do) send messages to the judge asking for clarification or additional direction. How the judge responds I suspect is mostly up to the discretion judge within some parameters. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2013, 11:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jury-nullifaction-do-jurors-know-about-it-how-often-is-it-used-what-else-is-like-it/651337/34 "2013-03-02T11:08:27Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > Jurors, yes, can do anything they want. Nullification got a bad name in the American south, where it came to mean acquitting a white man (men) of killing a black man. Worked the other way too when juries in the north refused to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act. > [@](#): > > “Jury nullification” took effect as local juries acquitted men accused of violating the law. Secretary of State Daniel Webster was a key supporter of the law as expressed in his famous “Seventh of March” speech. He wanted high profile convictions. The jury nullifications ruined his presidential aspirations and his last-ditch efforts to find a compromise between North and South. Webster led the prosecution when defendants were accused of rescuing Shadrach Minkins in 1851 from Boston officials who intended to return Minkins to his owner; the juries convicted none of the men. Webster sought to enforce a law that was extremely unpopular in the North, and his Whig Party passed over him again when they chose a presidential nominee in 1852. > > SOURCE: [Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Act_of_1850#Nullification) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2013, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jury-nullifaction-do-jurors-know-about-it-how-often-is-it-used-what-else-is-like-it/651337/35 "2013-03-02T14:10:13Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Can a potential jury member refuse to take the oath and avoid jury duty? > > I guess I am suggesting if the oath is forced via some threat (e.g. contempt of court and a fine and/or jail time) it is not much of an oath. > > Then again if people can simply skip out on jury duty by saying they do not want to take the oath that seems too simple. > > I would have a real problem following this [juror’s oath](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juror%27s_oath#United_States). Given that am I violative of the oath if I give it under duress and then break that oath? No. You simply have to explain why you can’t follow the oath. Where’s the duress? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2013, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jury-nullifaction-do-jurors-know-about-it-how-often-is-it-used-what-else-is-like-it/651337/36 "2013-03-02T14:23:06Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. You simply have to explain why you can’t follow the oath. Where’s the duress? I was really asking. I thought the duress could be if the judge slapped you with contempt of court for refusing to take the oath and do your civic duty. If in fact you can simply say that you (general “you”) cannot in good conscience take that oath and the judge sends you on your way then no problem. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2013, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jury-nullifaction-do-jurors-know-about-it-how-often-is-it-used-what-else-is-like-it/651337/37 "2013-03-02T16:57:40Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I was really asking. I thought the duress could be if the judge slapped you with contempt of court for refusing to take the oath and do your civic duty. > > If in fact you can simply say that you (general “you”) cannot in good conscience take that oath and the judge sends you on your way then no problem. No, if you say you cannot take the oath for that reason, I’d say you’re safe. I cannot imagine your explaining to the judge the reasons you’ve laid out here and getting any pushback from the judge. Of course, that doesn’t mean you can didge jury duty. You just may end up in civil court judging an insurance case. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jury-nullifaction-do-jurors-know-about-it-how-often-is-it-used-what-else-is-like-it/651337.md?page=1)