What is Jury Nullification?

Question

What is Jury Nullification?

Answer 1

Hi Chris - JURY NULLIFICATION OF LAW is one of the fundamental safeguards to our liberties as citizens.  It is in fact, the ultimate protection for those who have had the misfortune of getting caught in the (larger and larger) web of our legal system.  If you have never been subject to this process – consider yourself very lucky.  The justice department and law enforcement have the undeniable advantage of money – power – influence – and … sorry to say, corruption.  This was true even in our earlier history – but is especially so, now.  Our system has become one that is driven by elections and money – and nothing gets media coverage and votes like a solid record of ‘wins’ – or convictions.  Only the most naïve would deny that.  In the face of all this, the odds of the accused getting a fair trial are pretty dim.  In fact, it’s a challenge to even be able to get a trial.  Attorneys now are pressured to convince their clients to take a plea bargain (a guilty plea with a reduced charge).  Jefferson himself said, “…I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution...".  

I guess the essence of JURY NULLIFICATION, is that with a trial by jury – the control of the ultimate, final decision is removed from the court officials – and placed in the hands where it should be … the PEOPLE.  It really is a huge responsibility, but few view it that way.  Too often, it’s a chance to get out of work for a few days.  But it truly is the one chance that we have – as citizens – to be the ‘checkers’ so to speak, for how well our public servants are doing their job.  Too often, jurists are ill-prepared for this job.  Too often they understand little of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights… and too often they get caught up in the emotions and drama of the case, and forget that they are there ONLY to protect the ACCUSED at all times, because after all --- this is what they would want, if they were in that seat.  But too often – the ACCUSED winds up being guilty, until proven innocent, and hence - convicted.

Jurists really need to enter that courtroom with the mindset of distrust for government officials … and stop looking up to them as gods and saviors.  They need to demand obedience from the system --- not the other way around.  That is how it was intended to be.  Any other way, only leads to injustice.

Answer 2

As the question has been correctly answered, I will add that it is a shame that in our system, the people empaneled as a jury do not have knowledge of this. They have power if they will use it---and not let the judges tell them what to do and what the law is.---goggle-- the citizens rule book***jury handbook***

Answer 3

It is the legal theory which says that a jury can decide that the law on which the indictment was based is unconstitutional. It is based on something once said by Chief Justice of the United States John Jay in 1789:

"The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy".

This theory has been also cited in a positive way by Associate Justice Samuel Chase in 1796, Oliver Wendell Holmes in 1902  and Chief Justice of the United States Harlan F. Stone in 1941.