I’m in a bit of a discussion with a friend who has asserted that there are some states in the U.S. where jury nullification is expressly permitted. My understanding from the (many) previous threads on this topic is that this is incorrect - certainly at the federal level, but also at the state level.
Is there any state where jury nullification is expressly permitted? if not, is there a handy reference work or web-site that I could point my friend towards on this issue?
Also, I know I’ve seen a quote somewhere on this issue from SCOTUS, but I can’t seem to find it. Can anyone point me towards it?
Note: I’m just interested in the actual state of the law. I don’t want any debate on whether jury nullification is good or bad. If that’s your interest, feel free to open a thread in GD.
That depends on what you mean by “expressly permitted.” Jury nullification is not against the law; a jury can acquit for any reason it chooses. Jury deliberations are secret so there’s no risk of a person being punished for acquitting for a “bad” reason.
That said, when they receive their instructions, juries are told by the judges to judge only the facts of the case, and not to make any judgments about the law itself. There are movements in many states for “fully informed jury” laws which would require judges to tell juries that they are allowed to consider whether the law is just or not, but I know of no state where such a law has been sucessfuly passed.
Like friedo said there is no need for a statute “permitting” jury nullification. It is up to the jury to decide guilt and they do so among themselves and not under the watchful of a judge or a police officer. If a jury comes back and says, “Not guilty” then that is it. Case over, defendant goes free. I do not know of anything in the law where a judge could say the jury is nuts, made the wrong decision and then send the defendant to jail (barring tampering with the jury or something illegal which I assume would result in a mistrial).
I agree with everything that you write, Whack-a-Mole. However, the original question was whether a state had ever expressly permitted jury nullification. This would suggest sanctioning nullification by statute or case law in writing. Jury nullification is something that the courts and states do not expressly permit, but would rather have fly under the radar.
Jury nullification has never been endorsed by the law, but it’s never been forbidden, either. And it’s hard to imagine how a prohibition could be enforced, anyway. Suppose, for the sake of argument, a bunch of obviously guilty marijuana dealers were acquitted by juries that thought the sale of pot should be legalized. How would state governments prevent similar jury nullification from happening? Wiretap the juries during deliberation, to make sure their reasons for acquitting a defendant were sound legal ones, and not based on mere disdain for an unpopular law??
Jury nullification is not condoned by the law in any state, but as a practical matter, there’s nothing the law can do about it.
Moreover, “jury nullification” isn’t something new- all that’s changed is the causes that are likely to inspire nullification.
A century ago, if a white man were arrested and tried for killing a black man who seemed to be leering at his wife, a jury might well have acquitted the white man. Or if any Southern man caught his wife in bed with a lover and killed them both, a jury would probably have acquitted him. No one would have CALLED that “jury nullification,” but that’s what it would have amounted to. Juries regularly ignored what the law said and acquitted people they knew were guilty, simply because they didn’t think the letter of the law should apply.
Now, did Alabama “legally permit” juries to ignore the law and acquit obviously guilty defendants? Well, strictly speaking, no. At least, the Alabama legislature never passed a law saying “Juries are free to ignore the evidence and vote their prejudices.” But as a practical matter, the law recognizes that sometimes juries WILL acquit guilty parties in order to make a statement, and the law makes any attempt to change that.
A key thing to keep in mind is that, according to way our legal system is constructed, if it doesn’t say you can’t, then you can.
Let me repeat: if it doesn’t say you can’t, then you can. This applies to anything and everything.
So if there is no law that says a jury can’t nullify a law, then it can.
So what’s jury nullification all about?
A jury is susposed to do two things:
Judge the law.
If the law is judged to be fair, reasonable, and constitutional by the jury, judge the defendant according to the law.
A judge does not tell you about #1; he/she only tells the jury, “You must judge the defendant according to the law, you must not question the law, blaa blaa blaa.” As stated above, there is a movement afoot to educate people on #1.
Sorry for the slight hijack, but (shut up and sit down and no-one gets hurt) this topic brings me to a related question - if a judge specifically instructs a jury to judge only the defendant and not the law… well, is this legal? Does a judge have the legal right to do that? If a juror ignores that instruction then, regardless of the fact that they can’t practically be found out, are they still doing something illegal?
I’m not sure, but it seems to me that you’re not explaining on what basis a jury is supposed to do #1. Maybe they are and maybe they’re not. Maybe it’s never terribly clear what a jury is supposed to do beyond say ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’ or ‘we can’t decide’ at the end of a trial, and anything beyond that (on what basis they decide what to say) is entirely subjective and up to whatever the jurors themselves decide.
But saying “If the law doesn’t say you can’t, then you can” doesn’t amount to “If the law doesn’t say you can’t, then you’re supposed to” because there are too many possibilities and the law cannot specifically prohibit all of them. Does the law say that juries can’t enter and leave the courtroom by hopping upon their left foot??
However, AFAIK, and IANAL there are Jusistictions where if the Defence trys to get the Jury to Nullify in their closing statement, the Judge can & will slap them down pretty hard.
So, are there laws and regs regarding the rights *of the Defense * to raise the issue of Jury Nullification?
Really? I’d like some evidence for your assertion.
You say that one of the things a jury is “supposed” to do is “judge the law.” This implies that you believe that judging the law itself is one of the express responsibilities of a jury.
Can you provide a citation showing that any state does, in fact, instruct its juries in this way?
“Persistence is the key,” said the old law instructor to his star pupil. “Find the strongest aspect of your case and keep pushing it. If the law is on your side, hammer away on the law. If the facts are on your side, hammer away on the facts! If the circumstances are on your side, hammer away on the circumstances!!”
“But… what if the law, the facts, and the circumstances are all on the other side?” the student asked.
I was going to add, that the second quote above relies only on the constitutional provision. The provision does not deal with how a jury must be instructed. Therefore, it isn’t much help.
