Fortunately not having much experience with the court system, and also not fully understand what Jury Nullification actually is, I put forth:
From what I recently heard our (US) system of Guilty vs Not Guilty derived from a system in Scotland which the jury rulings were Proven vs Not Proven. A case came up where instead of the Proven or Not Proven decision the Jury decided to give a ruling of Not Guilty. How it was explained was that the jury wanted to make it clear that no matter if it was proven or not there was nothing done that was considered ‘wrong’ to do, so no guilt in the action.
If the above is true or not, I want to discuss the concept. If the jury decision is a decision of guilt (vs proven), would it not have to include proving that the defendant actually did something morally or accepted as wrong?
As I understand it if a prosecutor can prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the person did violate the written law that is what is usually take as what is meant by a ‘guilty’ verdict, however it appears really only to be ‘proven’ that he did it, as opposed to ‘guilty’’ that he did something ‘bad’ (in doing it).
First is this the basis of juror nullification? Secondly if a juror is asked to find someone guilty vs not guilty (as opposed to proven vs non-proven), would it not be incumbent of the juror to decide if there is guilt in the action to be had as well as if he committed the act?
And finally is it normally the procedure for the prosecutor to both try to prove the act was committed and that the act was ‘wrong’ to commit.
Not exactly. The prosecutor will generally try to show that the act had unpleasant consequences for the victim.
However, generally whether a criminal act was “wrong” only comes up as an affirmative defense. One category of such defenses is justifications like necessity (say, the accused had to break into a house because he was lost in the wilderness and in imminent danger of freezing to death.) Under those circumstances, the accused would say “yes, I did it, but you shouldn’t convict me because I had no choice.”
Similarly, if the accused raises an insanity defense, the prosecutor would have to show that the accused was aware of the wrongfulness of his conduct (though the required showing depends on the jurisdiction.)
The court is generally not going to allow argument about whether the underlying crime should be a crime unless there is a constitutional argument raised, and that would not be a jury issue (that is, it would be argued to the judge.) The prosecutor won’t be bringing in locals to testify how awful mopery is and how mopery destroys the community.
Do you mean jury nullification? If so, no. The basis of the supremacy of the jury was formally established after the antics of one William Penn, assisted by Messrs Starling, Bushel et al, and Howell in 1670. See Jury vs Bench, The Law’s Strangest Cases p20-23. Basically the jury refused to convict and the bench threw them in jail. As Chief Justice Vaughan pronounced, ‘A jury must be independently and inscrutably responsible for its verdict free from any threat from the court.’
Quick semi-related question: I understand jury nullification is more a de facto then de jure power.
By this I mean, jurors are supposed to only evaluate the laws and the facts, right? They’re not supposed to alter their verdict based on their own convictions? However, since they don’t have to explain their decision and they are free from prosecution for their participation in the trial, they can basically can do it without fear of consequences.
My question is: can you admit to having rendered a not guilty verdict even though you thought the person was guilty? Or do you have to lie and say you really thought he wasn’t guilty? If you admit to it, can you be charged with contempt of court or something similar?
The basis for jury nullification is that a jury’s verdict of “not guilty” is not reviewable by any other party. A judge can’t throw out a not guilty verdict because it was contrary to the facts or the law. So if a jury votes “not guilty” it doesn’t matter that they believed the defendant committed the acts, and the acts were against the law, but voted “not guilty” anyway. Jury nullification isn’t an intended feature of our justice system, it is an unintended side effect of the fact that jurors can’t be held liable for their decisions.
Note that judges can set aside guilty verdicts from the jury–but they can’t do the same for not guilty verdicts.
If you admit to it, yes. The de facto existence of jury nullification power basically rests on the fact that the jurors cannot be punished for nullifying unless they say they did it.
It is my understanding (and I haven’t done a whole lot of research) that the verdicts of Not Proven and Not Guilty have the same consequences: the Defendant is free from punishment.
The distinction is that Not Proven=the state didn’t prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, but the defendant might very well be guilty. Not Guilty is different than “Not Guilty” in the normal common law system in that the jury is affirmatively finding that the Defendant did not do it (beyond a reasonable doubt?) and thereby giving him improved standing in the community.
Does Scots law have some equivalent of American double-jeopardy protection?
If verdict is Not Guilty, is defendant forever and irreversibly acquitted, as in American law?
If verdict is Not Proven, can defendant be re-tried before a new jury? If prosecutor finds additional evidence, can defendant be re-tried? Is Not Proven something like the American mistrial?