Most people are unaware that there is a constitutional doctrine known as “jury nullification.” It is a way a jury can acquit a criminal defendant who is considered technically guilty, but whom the jury believes does not deserve punishment. This can happen during a jury trial when the jury agrees on a verdict that goes against a judge’s instructions pertaining to the law.
When jury nullification happens enough times, it could show a pattern of legislation that is opposed by the public.
History of Jury Nullification
Jury nullification is something that has been occurring since colonial British America. The concept of a jury declaring a defendant not guilty without regard to the defendant’s legal violations, because they viewed the law as unjust, was supported by Thomas Jefferson.
Nullification was often used to get past federal slavery laws prior to the Civil War. In 1969, the Supreme Court ruled that juries are given the authority to acquit a verdict that goes against the law, even if it is contrary to the evidence provided.
A Secret Power of Juries in Criminal Cases
The power of jury nullification is not something that is known by many ordinary citizens. It is common for juries not to be told they have the power to defy tyranny and go against unjust laws.
In fact, most courts in the United States do not permit a jury to be told about the process of jury nullification. This has resulted in many juries feeling as though they have no other choice but to send a person to prison despite believing the punishment of the law is unjust.
Nullification in Victimless Criminal Offense Cases
One of the things educators of jury nullification mention are victimless crimes. Many of these legal educators believe that if there is no victim, a crime had not been committed. This is considered the type of crime where no violation of a person’s rights occurred, but it has still been designated as a crime. This could be a situation where the defendant’s actions offended a person’s sensibilities.
It could be the trade of goods that have been banned or require a license. This could also involve the collection of rainwater on a person’s own property or use of alternative energy systems unregulated by the government and more.
Nullifying Unjust Punishments
Another important reason some jurors may want to nullify or have the choice to nullify a verdict is because they find the punishment for violating the law too harsh for the illegal act that was committed.
When the United States first became a country, the jury was involved with determining the sentence for a defendant. A great deal of effort is given in the courts of today to keep jurors unaware of the possible punishment a defendant may be given.
Criticisms of Jury Nullification
In some cases, jury nullification can be misused. In the past, nullification was a legal tool that was often used in the American South to obtain acquittals for whites who had victimized blacks. Once this was done, the guilty white defendants could not be tried again for the same crime because of the constitutional protection against double jeopardy.
Many people were repulsed that the court system could be used in this way, so it helped to motivate the civil rights movement. This then led to passing significant civil rights legislation.
Biased Jury Selection
Abuses of jury nullification can also involve a person’s right to be tried by a jury that has been chosen without bias. The problem with juries in the South was that they did not represent the community where the offenses had been committed. This made it almost impossible for a defendant to get a fair and impartial trial.
Attempted Jury Nullification Legislation
In the early 1990s, there was a movement designed to bring the issue of jury nullification to the public and make it part of court procedures. This time the emphasis was a desire to legislate a change rather than depend on case law to set a precedent. The goal was to make instructing a jury concerning their legal rights when it comes to jury nullification a standard part of the court procedure.
Passing such legislation was attempted in many different states without success. In South Dakota in 2002, the voters were given a chance to amend their state’s constitution to make jury nullification instructions mandatory. The citizens overwhelmingly voted against it.