Jury Nullification

Factual Questions
1

Over in Great Debates, Melin mentioned Jury Nullification in a thread. I’ve always wanted to know more about it.

As I understand it, a jury can refuse to convict someone if they do not believe that the crime he is charged with should be a crime. This is called Jury Nullification (I think). I’ve heard that judges and lawyers aren’t supposed to mention Jury Nullification to juries, is this true? If so, why?

Related question: If I’m a member of a jury am I legally required to determine guilt or innocence by the evidence? Suppose I were on a jury and voted guilty just because the defendant was black/white/whatever. Could I theoretically be prosecuted for not using the facts to decide the case? Could the conviction be overturned?

2

Your understanding of jury nullification is basically correct.

In general, the lawyers and judge are not supposed to mention jury nullification for the same reason they are not supposed to mention the last twelve number one singles by Elvis: it’s irrelevant to the case at hand. The jury’s job is to decide a case based on the evidence. It’s not relevant or proper to argue to the jury that they should disregard that obligation and decide a case based on their whim.

But – a jury’s criminal verdict of ‘not guilty’ is sacrosant. Once rendered, even for the wrong reasons, it’s set in stone and cannot be changed.

In general, there is no remedy against a juror who votes any way he wishes. There was a case in Colorado wherein a juror was charged in connection with a drug case she heard. The jury returned a verdict of ‘not guilty’, and it developed that the woman was very persuasive in convicning the other jury members that it was a bad law.

She was charged, however, not with what she did in the jury room, but with her failure to disclose her membership in several organizations dedicated to the legalization of drugs, even when asked as part of voire dire.

  • Rick
3

I’ve read several articles about Jury Nullification, and most of the articles I’ve read seemed to me to say (after boiling down the legal terms) “it’s not illegal, but it’s a bad idea.” In my understanding, judges don’t mention it because they’re not required to, and why would you want to instruct a jury they don’t have to follow the law? An example I’ve read is that without jury nullification, Harriet Tubman would have been convicted of violating slavery laws.
Many of the articles in support of jury nullification are written by “anarchists” or people who want to vastly diminish the power of the Federal Government (e.g. Montana Militiamen.) So it does make the idea seem dubious at best.

But maybe one of our resident board attorneys (Melin, DSYoung, Jodih) will come along and enlighten us.

4

Sorry - didn’t answer your last question.

If you voted ‘guilty’ based on the race of the defendant, and later admitted that, it might well be grounds for overturning the conviction, since the defendant was denied his basic right to an impartial jury.

  • Rick
5

or, what Bricker said.

6

I’ve never served on a jury, but I WAS called for federal grand jury duty recently.
(By luck of the draw, I didn’t make the final cut.) The judge we were introduced to DID talk about jury nullification. He went out of his way to stress that, while he enjoyed political debates as much as anyone, and would be happy to debate the merits of drug, gun-control, truancy, or whatever laws, we potential jurors were to base our decisions ONLY on the facts of the case at hand… and even if we didn’t like gun control, we had an obligation to convict accused gun smugglers, if they were guilty. Even if we wanted pot to be legal, we had to convict pot smugglers if they were guilty.

Maybe most judges ignore the issue, but the one federal judge I’ve encountered DID mention it.

7

Bricker summed it up nicely. There is little control over what a jury does once they get behind the closed door of the jury room. In spite of all the instructions and admonishments from a judge, a jury may simply find a law unjust, or find that a law is being applied unfairly, and refuse to enforce it. Not a whole lot anyone can do about it.

Personally, I think its a fine power for a jury to have. The best example I can think of would be a politically-motivated prosecution.

Let’s imagine a prominent politician who is guilty of a crime. Hmmm, just for the sake of an example, we’ll say perjury. Let’s say that the politician in question was lying to cover up an affair, which, if discovered, would have caused him great embarrassment.

Now, perjury happens all across the country, every day. It very rarely gets prosecuted, though. But for the sake of our example, let’s say there is an overly-zealous prosecutor involved, who has a political bone to pick with our hypothetical politician. Such a prosecutor, using his “prosecutorial discretion” might decide to prosecute our politician, even though 999 out of 1000 perjurers would not be prosecuted.

I can see a jury, being presented with such a case, deciding, in the privacy of the jury room, not to endorse a politically-motivated prosecution, and returning a verdict of “not guilty” even in the face of clear evidence that the crime was committed.

Pretty wild hypothetical, huh? Glad nothing like that could ever happen in this country. :wink:

Still, nice to know that jury nullification is out there as a potential buffer in this type of situation.

“Every time you think, you weaken the nation!” --M. Howard (addressing his brother, C. Howard).

8

[Hijack. Put your heads down between your knees, we don’t want to hurt anyone.] Perhaps one of the resident lawyers could enlighten us on the related topic of … I don’t know what it’s called, where a judge will simply throw out a jury verdict and substitute one of his own. Where does this come from? Are there any limitations on it? Is there any sort of review process over its implementation?[/Hijack. You are free to go, but you must deliver this message for us: The Great Satan is doomed, we will never surrender.]

9

That creature of the law is called “judgment notwithstanding the verdict” – sometimes confusingly abbreviated as jnov (English when written out, Latin when abbreviated–go figure).

This mechanism is used by judges in civil cases (where damages are sought). A judge has authority to override a jury verdict only where there is no evidence to support it. A related concept is the directed verdict, where the judge decides that the evidence, even construed in the most favorable light, does not support a verdict for the plaintiff, and directs the jury to return a defense verdict.

Usually, though, a judge who believes there is no evidence to support a verdict (typically because the plaintiff has failed to prove some essential element of its claim), goes ahead and allows the jury to deliberate the claim anyway. Then, if the jury awards no money, there is an unassailable jury verdict vindicating the judge’s view. If the jury, in spite of what the judge views as an absence of evidence, returns a damage award, the judge can decide to render a “judgment notwithstanding verdict” and strike down the jury’s award. This is an appealable decision, and will only be upheld on appeal if the appeals court finds that there was no evidence to support the verdict. Otherwise, the judge will be reversed, and the appeals court will direct him/her to enter a judgment based on the award of the jury.

“Every time you think, you weaken the nation!” --M. Howard (addressing his brother, C. Howard).

10

I should clarify. A judge can also render directed verdicts or judgments notwithstanding verdict in favor of a plaintiff. (For example, where a plaintiff presents undisputed evidence, and the defendant has no admissible evidence to rebut the claim.) However, in practice, these judicial tools are much more commonly utilized to strike down a plaintiff’s claim.

11

To spoke’s concise summary as regards the world of civil law, I would add that on the criminal side, it is possible for the judge disregard a guilty verdict and enter a finding of not guilty as well. As with the civil case, the judge must find as a matter of law that the prosecution did not meet its burden of proof, and that no reasonable jury could have concluded it did.

Sometimes it takes an appellate court to realize that. In fact, that’s a key determination for an apellate court to make, and it’s why most appeals often assign, as error, the claim that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a guilty verdict. Why? Because if the higher court decides, for example, that the trial court improperly admitted evidence, and that it was not a harmless error, they will vacate the conviction and remand for a new trial.
NUT - if the higher court determines that the evidence was insufficient, then double jeopardy concerns are implicated, and the defendant is simply off the hook.

  • Rick
12

It might be worthwhile to describe the difference between questions of fact and questions of law.

It’s the jury’s job to decide questions of fact. They hear witnesses testify and decide what weight to give their words.

A judge decides questions of law – given a certain set of facts, how does the law apply?

For example: let’s say that in Brickerston, we have a law that forbids “committing a robbery when armed with a deadly weapon.”

Now let us assume that someone goes into the local bakery and pulls out a set of false teeth, holds them menacingly in front of him, and demands bread. “Careful! You know how dangerous a human bite can be!”

Now, if spoke, for example, is arrested and charged with this crime, there are two basic questions that must be resolved. First, was it him? He denies it – claims he was home alone watching Love Boat reruns all day. The baker is positive it was him. It’s the jury’s job to listen to them both, and decide who they believe. Ultimately, the jury must answer the question of fact: “Did spoke go into the bakery, threaten the baker with a pair of dentures, and take away bread?”

The judge has a different role. He must decide if, as a matter of law, dentures are a “deadly weapon” within the meaning of the law of Brickerston. If they are not, then it doesn’t matter if spoke did this act; he’s not guilty of that crime. If dentures are a deadly weapon, then the jury gets to do its job.

In the previous post, I mentioned that a judge could decide as a matter of law that no reasonable jury could have reached a certain verdict. In our bakery case, if the baker gets on the stand and says, “I know it was spoke, because Arnold told me it was,” the defense might move to exclude that statement on the ground that it is hearsay. The judge would instruct the jury to disregard that statement.

If it turned out that this was the only evidence connecting spoke to the crime, the judge could decide that, as a matter of law, there is insufficient evidence upon which to base a verdict of guilty.

Sorry to ramble on… but the distinction between law and fact can be tricky sometimes. Not that anyone actually asked… :slight_smile:

  • Rick
13

Hmmm…

In for a penny, in for a pound.

In the civil world, there’s also a creature called “summary judgement.” This is a motion made before trial, by either side, that typically says, “Look - there is no question of fact for a jury to decide here. Even if we admit every single fact that the plaintiff is alleging, they have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” So forget the jury, and just give us a decision now.

Example: I think the upcoming episode of Ally McBeal is going to have Georgia suing the law firm of Cage and Fish for breaking up her marriage to Billy. You don’t need to know the characters to to know that this claim won’t survive in a court. (No guarantees on what actually happens on the show, which has a powerful affection for the ridiculous).

Why won’t it? Because in Massachusetts, the legislature has outlawed claims for alienation of affection, which was the claim that used to exist at common law against a homewrecker who stole away a husband (or, presumably, a wife). So if you can’t sue the little bimbo that breaks up your marriage, can you really sue a law firm that does? Even if Georgia’s allegations are admitted, there is no remedy she’s entitled to.

Anyway, enough is enough. Sorry. :slight_smile:

  • Rick
14

As I understand it, the principle of jury nullification goes back, like so many legal things do, to English law. I couldn’t quote chapter and verse but I believe there was some notorious case where a jury refused to convict someone whose prosecution was blatantly political in motivation, and the judge or prosecutor ordered the jury imprisoned for it. Out of that incident arose one of the rights enshrined in British common law, that a jury can not be punished for finding someone not guilty.

Of course out and out jury tampering, where say it’s discovered you the juror took a big fat bribe to vote not guilty, is prosecuteable. It’s also been upheld that a jury that was prejudiced before the trial by such things as pretrial publicity can be grounds for overturning a gulity verdict. I’m unsure whether a juror can be prosecuted or held civilly liable for simply rendering a grossly unjust verdict. However I doubt it, because I don’t believe juries are required to explain their verdicts, or even say who voted which way.

Soon afterwards, Deimos simply vanished from the sky.

15

BRICKER – You have admirably set forth some of the basics of civil law, but you might want to clarify that a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim (Rule 12(b)(6), F.R.Civ.P.) is not technically the same as a motion for summary judgment (Rule 56, F.R.Civ.P.). A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is an allegation that the complaint, on its face, does not present a cognizable theory of recovery. A motion for summary judgment is an allegation that the complaint, on the merits, does not entitle the claimant to recover, because no genuine issue of material fact is in dispute and because the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Sorry to quibble – good explanations. :slight_smile:

Jodi

Fiat Justitia

16

Absolute truth: I finished the last of my three posts in a row, then started taking the garbage out to the curb for tomorrow’s pickup. I was on bag #3 when I realized I had described a 12(b)(6) situation.

So I came back, sat down, and started yet another post… and then thought, “You know, it’s not that critical, and if I have FOUR posts in a row on one thread, there will really be something wrong with me.”

Besides, I thought as I walked away, the court will treat a motion titled “Summary Judgement” as a motion to dismiss, and vice-versa, based on what the motion alleges. So it’s not that bad an error.

[sub]weasel weasel weasel[/sub]

  • Rick
17

Rick, I wouldn’t get too upset that you didn’t post an entire course in Civil Procedure in response to a question about Jury Nullification. In any event, your explanations were a lot clearer and more understandable than my Civ Pro professor ever gave,

18

On a related point:

In Georgia, anyway, a Court cannot explore the reason a jury decided a particular way. There is statutory law which provides that a juror may not be heard to impeach his own verdict.

Example: Let’s say a judge instructs a jury in a civil case not to consider the issue of attorney’s fees and not to award any attorney’s fees to the plaintiff. The jury disregards this instruction, and without telling the judge, calculates attorney’s fees into the amount of damages they award. Afterwards, one of the jurors has second thoughts, and tells the defense attorneys what happened. The defense attorneys submit to the judge an affidavit by this juror, and seek to have the jury award overturned, on the ground that the jury improperly awarded attorney’s fees.

Too bad, says the judge. The verdict stands. The deliberations of the jury are sacrosanct.

Now, I understand that in some states, notably Texas, it is very different, and you can examine what went on in the jury room. Any Texas J.D.'s out there?

“Every time you think, you weaken the nation!” --M. Howard (addressing his brother, C. Howard).

19

“Still, nice to know that jury nullification is out there as a potential buffer in this type of situation.”

And that’s one of the things that appellate courts usually point out when the issue of jury instructions on nullification comes up. The jury has the power to nullify, but the judge is not required to INFORM the jurors of that power in the jury instructions. The logic for such a rule is this:

Jurors are able to decide contrary to the law when they think that the law will bring an unconscionably unjust result when applied in the case at hand. But they should come to that conclusion independently, “forced” to it by the degree of injustice that following the jury instructions would cause. Telling jurors up front that they can ignore the law to avoid grave injustice creates the possibility – a strong possibility in complex and controversial cases – that the jurors will nullify even where grave injustice would NOT result from following the law.

Think “Southern all-white jury circa 1920 deciding an allegation of lynching” - if the jurors feel so strongly, let them “reinvent the wheel” for themselves; don’t spoon-feed them the idea!

It makes sense to me. It makes sense to most judges. But the idea that the jury can do something but isn’t told that they can do it seems to greatly offend the sensibilities of jury-nullification advocates. Their solution is to “inform” the public about their power of nullification (read “urge potential jurors to use it whenever they feel like it”) so that some jurors know about it even without a jury instruction.

20

Lumpy,

I think you’r thinking of the Case of the Seven Bishops (no, it’s not a Sherlock Holmes story).

During James II’s time, he ordered that a Declaration of Indulgence for Roman Catholics be read from the pulpits of all the C of E churches. Seven of the C of E bishops refused, and were charged with sedition. The jury acquitted. I believe they were then charged with a perverse verdict, and were tried and acquitted - but it’s late, and I’m not sure of all the details. But yes, it established the principle that the jurors could not be questioned on their verdict.

and the stars o’erhead were dancing heel to toe