Legal Theory -- Jury Nullification

Great Debates
1

First off let me state that this might belong in GQ rather than here in GD but is has a GD feel to it so here it is. Apologies if it turns out to be the wrong place.

I was watching an episode of The Practice and it brought to mind the following question. I realize that getting any semblance of legal reality from a TV show is dicey at best but in this case I don’t think it is an issue (as you’ll see) as it merely prompted the question to form. I will, however, use the show’s premise to illustrate what I’m talking about…just take it as illustration/hypothetical.

In the show a man was being prosecuted for murdering his wife. His wife was terminally ill from cancer, on her deathbed at home and in extreme agony. It was established that the home care nurse was giving her a mix of morphine and valium for pain management that was also to have the side effect of hastening her death…probably a day or two for that to occur (the nurse was not on trial). The husband could take no more of watching his wife suffer and her pleas to be put out of her misery so he asked the nurse to leave, got his gun and shot his wife in the head killing her instantly.

The upshot of the trial was a man who in every technical sense committed murder. The suspense of the show was in determining if the jury could see its way to convict a man of murder (the DA flatly refused a lesser sentence of manslaughter although strongly pressured to do so) while strongly sympathizing with his reasons and not viewing him in any way as a menace to society.

This thread is not meant to debate euthanasia but rather the notion of jury nullification (I think I have that term right). Basically the defense was hoping that although the law seemed crystal clear in this case (the man was guilty of murder as defined in the statute) that the jury would, in effect, overrride the law and find him innocent due to extenuating circumstances. The show made a point of noting that the minimum sentencing requirements of murder (in that state at least) left little to no room for latitude to be given at sentencing if he was found guilty.

From a legal theory standpoint is jury nullification considered a correct and proper role of the jury or is it considered a jury run amok? Put another way, are juries supposed to be mechanical in their duties in strictly finding guilt or innocence based on the applicable law or are they supposed be a representation of their community and use those standards as well when making their decision?

I know jury nullification is rare but I believe it has happened. I could be wrong but I think some states allow a judge to override the verdict if he/she feels the jury did not apply the law appropriately (judgement notwithstanding the verdict?).

I find myself flip-flopping on this one. On the one hand I like to think of a jury being able to bend the law as it is near impossible for the law to be written to cover every conceivable angle. A jury can look at a particular case and say, in effect, that they don’t believe the law was meant to punish someone in a very particular circumstance. On the other hand the ability of juries to be swayed by emotion and not apply the law when it should be is very real as well.

Thoughts?

[sub]SPOILER – The man in the show was found guilty by the jury of Murder-2. The jury had asked the judge if they could lower to Manslaughter but the judge refused. It was an all or nothing deal.[/sub]

2

Im no legal expert, but I know historically that jury nullification is very much a right. Whether this is the attitude of the legal establishment, Ive no idea, but early on in US history it was perceived that the jury wasnt just there to judge guilt or innocence but also to judge the validity of a particular law as well as to supervise the governments execution of justice. Its one of the many checks and balances.

“Jurors should acquit, even against the judge’s instruction… if exercising their judgement with discretion and honesty they have a clear conviction the charge of the court is wrong.” - Alexander Hamilton, 1804

In 1895, the Supreme Court ruled that courts no longer had to inform juries they could veto an unjust law.

All that being said, in the modern world jurist nullification is just the plain fact that you can decide in any fashion you choose as a jurist. If it were pre-ordained that you had to come to a specific conclusion, that would be little more than jury tampering by the government.

The thing is, if you for example vote to aquit while the 11 others vote to convict, you can not under any circumstances give a reason as to why you voted to aquit; keep your mouth shut. As long as a jurist does not volunteer why they voted they way they did, then their vote cannot be challeneged.

And yes, jurist nullification does work and it does happen. The one and only time Ive ever sat on a jury, I refused to convict - the only to do so - and the guy walked away free. Thats why Im answering your post. It was only a solicitation of prostitution charge, and as far as Im concerned there is no such thing as a victomless crime. No victom, no crime. So there was no way I could have any self respect while voting for the guy to go to jail for something that is only wrong depending on ones individual morality.

But not all jurist nullification happens with such harmless cases. The mafia has taken advantage of jurist nullification many times.

3

I believe this was originally intended to act as another check on the power of government.

If I remember correctly, before the Revolutionary War in the U.S., the British were unable to successfully prosecute anyone for smuggling, as the only available jury pool were the friends and neighbors of the accused (and they were often smugglers themselves, so they clearly didn’t take too kindly to the law).

4

However, sometimes, like in the CA case, where the Federal judge refused to let the defense even mention the dude was selling the hemp “legally” (according the CA law) for medical use only, - the jury isn’t given the info it would want in order to “nullify”. The judge basicly told the jury they had no choice but to convict the dude- afterwards, the Jury now says they are angry at being mislead & duped by that Judge.

5

Past thread: Jury nullification, anyone?.

6

Interesting…in the TV show they mentioned that the defense attorneys cannot argue for jury nullification. I took that to mean that the defense could not mention or otherwise put that notion into the jury’s head as a possibility. You’d think that if jury nullification was part-and-parcel of our system of checks-and-balances that juries should very much be informed that they may decide to overrule a given law. All that being said this is a TV show I am going from and, presumably, based upon Massachussettes law which may not be the case in other states.

You also have the possibility, at least in some jurisdictions, of a judge overruling a jury’s verdict. This would again seem to indicate that if anything states are trying to limit the jury’s ability in this respect.

Finally, jury nullification doesn’t seem to apply in the case you sat on although maybe I’m misinterpreting what the deal was there. It seems to me that jury nullification exists when there is zero doubt as to the accused’s ‘guilt’. That is, the accused pretty much says that they did whatever they are accused of but extenuating circumstances, not covered under law, made their actions reasonable and should not be punished. It should be up to a jury to decide if they agree or not.

7

Figures there was another thread on this. I only perused the top of that thread but the OP rests on a proposed amendment to allow jury nullification if they feel a law is ‘draconian’ or ‘misguided’. FWIW I see this slightly differently. I am not proposing that jury nullification decide if a law is overreaching or somehow wrong but rather for a jury to be able to look at a defendant and say, “I think the law is fine but I don’t think it was really intended to catch people like this.” The issue of euthanasia in the TV show had it that Murder-2 was FAR too strong to go after the husband (likely life in prison). Manslaughter was a possibility that existed but was not allowed to the jury (likely sentence of 4-6 years with good behavior). The jury tried to see if they could mitigate their finding but no go.

8

*Originally posted by Whack-a-Mole *
Interesting…in the TV show they mentioned that the defense attorneys cannot argue for jury nullification. I took that to mean that the defense could not mention or otherwise put that notion into the jury’s head as a possibility.

As far as I am aware, that is correct and it happens all the time.

**You’d think that if jury nullification was part-and-parcel of our system of checks-and-balances that juries should very much be informed that they may decide to overrule a given law. **

Yes, one would think that. :wink:

You also have the possibility, at least in some jurisdictions, of a judge overruling a jury’s verdict. This would again seem to indicate that if anything states are trying to limit the jury’s ability in this respect.

Yes, and that is why I mentioned that you need to keep your mouth shut if you ever find yourself in the situation of being the only vote against the majority in a jury trial. The judge can and will throw out the verdict if you give a response explaining your vote that he/she doesnt find satifactory.

**Finally, jury nullification doesn’t seem to apply in the case you sat on although maybe I’m misinterpreting what the deal was there. It seems to me that jury nullification exists when there is zero doubt as to the accused’s ‘guilt’. That is, the accused pretty much says that they did whatever they are accused of but extenuating circumstances, not covered under law, made their actions reasonable and should not be punished. It should be up to a jury to decide if they agree or not. **

For all intents and purposes, as far as I am aware the modern form of jury nullification lies in the fact that jurers cannot be compelled to explain why they voted the way they did…in any trial. You cant be threatened with contempt of court for not explaining why you voted a particular way.

In the case I sat in jury for, yes I was asked repeatedly if I had heard all the evidence, if I was clear about what the law said, etc etc. And I repeatedly answered yes I understood perfectly but my vote was to aquit, without offering an explanation as to why.

As an aside, even if I didnt do so out of an understanding that prostitution is just a market based business, the situation was an undercover officer whom the man had showed a wad of cash to and asked ‘How much?’. I figure, if the officer not specifically stating she was a prostitute was enough to escape a charge of entrapment, the man not specifically stating how much for what was enough for him to escape a charge of solicitation.

9

The concept seems good in principle, but I see a big possibility for abuse. For example, in the past juries in the south refused to convict whites who killed blacks.

10

How is that any more of an abuse than Voodochile’s experience with the prostitution defendant?

11

I think both are cases where jurors know that the law has been violated, but refuse to enforce it because they personally don’t like it. Otherwise, the two cases are radically different in nature.

12

I don’t understand this part. What does the DA have to do with the sentence? Especially when the defendant hasn’t even been convicted yet?

Maybe a lawyer can explain differently, but I thought it was up to the jury to decide what, if anything, the defendant was guilty of. And that neither the DA (prosecutor), defense lawyer, or even the Judge was able to tell them what verdict they had to render. (Seem to remember reading about such a case involving William Penn even before the USA existed.)

13

Good grief.

To answer t-bonham@scc.net’s question, the DA decides what charges to bring. A jury can only answer guilty or not guilty for the charges they are presented; they can’t add a charge to the indictment on their own.

The DA could have chosen to charge both murder and manslaughter, telling the jury: if you find he meant to do this, it’s murder; if he didn’t mean to but acted recklessly, it’s manslaughter. But the DA chose only to the have the jury asked, “Did he plan this and do it on purpose?”

Now…

Do you post inaccurate information on purpose, Voodoochile, or was this just an isolated mistake?

The judge may vacate a guilty verdict under many circumstances. But a jury verdict of ‘not guilty’ cannot be disturbed even if the juror says he voted the way he did out of disgust for the law. The juror’s admission may mean he himself faces penalties, but the judge cannot throw out a not-guilty verdict.

So if you were intentionally lying, please stop, and if it was just an honest mistake, hey - we all make 'em. No harm done.

14

The difference from the situation in the OP seems to me that even if the man had offered money for a specific act, you still would have voted to acquit.

I have never been on a jury, so forgive me if this is wrong. Isn’t it true that during jury selection the potential jurors are made aware of the charge? Wouldn’t the prosecutor or judge ask if you would be able to reach a finding of guilt if the facts warranted? If that is the case, it seems you were more “proactive” going in and knew that you would not vote to convict under any circumstances. That seems different from the hypothetical in the OP.

15

It seems to me that jury nullification is a good thing, and the arguments of the legal eagles who oppose it demonstrate why, as they use every rhetorical trick imaginable to justify what’s at heart a simple aggrandizement of power on their part.

Frex, let’s try a couple of “legal” definitions:

Anarchy – the law means what a jury says it means.
Rule of law – the law menas what lawyers and judges say it means.

Here’s another rhetorical trick: lawyers have cited cases where juries have made bad decisions, presumably under the jury nullification umbrella. Of course they have. Juries can and do make bad decisions without using jury nullification – good ones as well. The notion that jurors might make a bad decision is an argument against the jury system itself, not jury nullification.

And if you’re thinking that the legal eagles who hate jury nullification also dislike having to deal with seriously unprofessional jurors and would like to see pros like themselves making decisions of guilt or innocence – I’d say you’re on the right track.

16

I tend to advocate being aware of jury nullification rights for 2 reasons. I say advocating awareness because jury nullification exists whether you want to acknowledge it or not - one doesn’t have to formally declare ‘jury nullification’ to find someone not guilty in certain circumstances.

  1. Following the letter of the law can be a miscarriage of justice. In the OP’s example, it would certainly be a miscarriage of justice to convict this man of murder. I’d imagine any reasonable person can sympathize with him and realize he commited no crime. Only under a legal system in which people are instructed to act like automatons, following and applying the letter of the law, would that man be convicted of murder. Jury nullification can be used to ensure that the spirit of the law is followed over the letter of the law.

  2. It puts too much power in the hands of the state. If people are convinced that they are restricted to the exacting detail of the law in creating a verdict, then the government can pass whatever oppressive laws it wants. Jury nullification acts as a check on the power of the government by reducing the enforcement of laws which reasonable people find abhorent. It would seem that the state is making any mention of jury nullification illegal, and prohibiting defendants from informing juror’s of their nullification rights. This entirely corresponds to a government who passes law after law, infringing on freedom after freedom. It’s to the state’s advantage to convince people that they’re supposed to be mindless automatons and ignore their own views when rendering a verdict based on the law alone - it makes it easier for a government with unreasonable laws to maintain control.

17

:rolleyes:

Actually, lawyers are pretty big on the whole “trial by jury” thing. Juries are there to find facts. They are there to weigh evidence – to determine which witnesses are credible and which are not, to decide if physical evidence means what the party offering it says it means, and to otherwise basically answer the question “what actually happened?” They act as a bulwark against the state manipulating the facts of a case.

But they shouldn’t act as judges of the law. When they do that, they essentially decide to veto a decision made by their fellow citizens – they decide their judgment as to what the law ought to be is better than the judgment of the people, as expressed through their elected representatives. And that is antithetical to a nation founded on the principal of representative democracy.

I also note that jury nullification was the source of the acquittals of many who used violence against blacks and civil rights workers in the 1950’s and 1960’s. Those jurors effectively said “the law ought not punish a white man for killing a black man.” Nullification ain’t just about letting peaceful pot smokers off the hook.

18

Bricker already answered this but let me add that part of the confusion here is my own sloppy writing. I should not have said ‘sentence’ but rather charges.

Fair enough and a good point. However don’t you feel it is impossible for laws to be written to cover all contingencies? In the hypothetical in the OP the man was certainly guilty of Murder-2 as far as the letter of the law goes. I just don’t think the spirit of the law of Murder-2 was really meant for people like that and there is no way the law could be written to take into account such fringe possibilities. It would then be up to the jury to look at it and say that they don’t think a crime against society was committed and the man on trial is not a menace to society. At least not to the level that a charge of Murder-2 carries with it. Maybe the jury (and as was presented in the show) felt the man was guilty of something…just not that great a something. The jury was not given that option however and in this case seemed to apply the letter of the law.

I would think one way around this would be to allow greater latitude at sentencing thus allowing mitigating factors to play a strong role in the person’s punishment. However that too has been severly curtailed in most states with minimum sentencing restrictions (I would assume due to abuse of that system).

In the end it seems to be a choice between an iron clad, inflexible system that may punish people unduly or a system that can bend but then be taken advantage of and possibly let people off completely or with less punishment than they deserve. Me…I opt for the flexible option as I find it less repugnant to let guilty people off with lighter (or no) punishment than to punish the innocent.

19

Tell it to Dr. Kevorkian.

You don’t get to play God. Except maybe in Oregon.

20

:wink: No, no evil intentions, just a mistake.

Perhaps if our legal system wasnt a self replicating system increasingly divorced from those for whom it was created to serve, these types of misunderstandings would occur less frequently.:wink:

To the other poster who asked about the questions we were asked pre-trial, yes I was asked something along the lines of if I could vote merely on the evidence and not on my agreement with the law. My answer was no, I could not guarentee that my morality would not influence my opinion when a particular law itself is based on nothing but morality. I was then asked if I had understood my instructions and didnt I realize that I was bound to consider only the facts. I answered that if they could promise me that the law in question was enacted solely on facts of threats to our common self interest rather than one segment of societies view of moralistic right and wrong, then yes.

I didnt want to be on the jury, trust me. I certainly didnt lie to get on it. I was blatantly honest. I think it had more to do with the fact that the pool was almost empty and they still had seats to fill and the assistant DA maybe just figured ‘we’ll give you this one lets just get on with it’. There was a particular atmosphere of resentment (in my opinion) in having to waste time or whatever for a case that usually never goes to trial. But the guy demanded a jury trial, so hey.

Ive read the other thread someone posted a link to. I think some people look at the law as some kind of religous ideal or something. There is the theory of how its supposed to work, and there is the reality of the way it does work. One might say that the theory is an ideal that we should all aspire to uphold, but I would answer that any system that is dependant upon those within it all sharing a relatively uniform moral ideal is a system that is built to fail.

It would be nice if the theory of our judges being impartial were true, and Im sure many try to be; but the fact of the matter is that the legislature that enacts laws is responsible also (in most places) for deciding the amount of pay judges receive, and the amount of the budgets of public defenders offices as well as the budgets of the judicial system itself. And of course when it comes to a question between ones perceived moral responsibility and ones material income/wellbeing, most times one is going to choose ones material well being. There is nothing inherently wrong with that, its natural; but acting as if it doesnt or isnt going to happen is silly.