Jury nullification - would you do it? (multiculturalism, ethical, legal)

[tablemtn]

I was on a jury a while back that heard a marijuana possession case. The amount of pot in question was slightly over the legal threshold for 'trafficking' and 'distribution' rather than mere personal possession. It was also the only crime implicated in the case - there were no collateral charges of violence, robbery, etc.

I decided to go ahead and nullify the verdict - initially, eleven of the jurors voted 'guilty,' with me as the sole holdout. I explained my position without using the phrase 'nullification' (which is a murky area of law that jurors have to be careful about), and got another couple of jurors to switch votes.

Since the jury was hopelessly deadlocked 9-3, the judge eventually declared a mistrial, and the state decided not to re-file the charges.

I think it was the right thing to do, and is in fact why we have a jury system at all. If it was merely a matter of the application of the law, the guy was clearly guilty. But jurors are able to consider things like public policy, or the fairness of the law itself.

But not everyone feels this way. In fact, I doubt that most people even know about nullification. There is a common but false notion that a jury 'must' find someone guilty if the evidence of guilt is clear. However, there is no such law or constitutional provision to that effect.

[saganista]

Jury nullification is a clearly a right and was established by the founders as a duty...as the citizen's last line of defense against tyranny. The right has been repeatedly endorsed...

The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.
-- John Jay

It is not only the juror's right, but his duty...to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience even though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.
--John Adams

The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact.
-- Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

Juries are not bound by what seems inescapable logic to judges.
-- Justice Robert Jackson

The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided.
-- Justice Harlan Stone

[tinman01]

I have done my share of jury duty. It is my understanding and belief that it is a jurists duty to render a verdict based on the evidence. The law is for those who understand our constituion to decide. I may not agree with every law. That is irrelevent to the job of a jurist.
Example I sat on a jury for a man who killed a woman while she was delivering the morning paper.
He raped her, then killed her, and then raped the corpse. This he admitted to....
His lawyers would have us believe he was not guilty, that his confession was forced. He was one of the cuban immigrants Carter let in. In cuba he had been detained in an institution for the criminally insane....
His lawyers felt he was innocent by reason of insanity...
He was sane enough to plan the crime. Sane enough to know to flee the scene, and sane enough to lie about it until he was shown he was caught with no way out.
I would have given him death, no hesitation. Some of my fellow jurists felt pity for him. He was such a nice looking man. Yes he was after his lawyers gave him an extreme make over.
The death penalty was not sought so I had no choice but to give the max prison sentence. I could have held out because I believed the punishment was not correct. Instead I did my duty and had him locked up for life.
You may feel pot is a victimless crime. You may feel that due to the amount being just a tad over the limit no harm no foul. I would say that there is a reason why there is a limit. I would sided with my fellow jurists.

[oz in SC]

If more people did this or knew of it there wouldn't be so many people in prison for minor offenses.

I was on a jury judging a man for a weapons 'violation'(the firearm was legal,the man simply had it in the 'wrong place' in his vehicle) and honestly I am not sure what I would have done if it had come to deciding a verdict(the man pleaded guilty before the end of the trial).

While he did break the law as written,if it had been in his glovebox there would never have been a trial.

Incidentally, he was stopped by the drug task force who found nothing else on him or any criminal history.

[tablemtn]

I may not agree with every law. That is irrelevent to the job of a jurist.

Why? If only the law mattered, wouldn't it make more sense for judges alone to apply the law? After all, judges understand the law a LOT better than jurors. The jury system is there to perform a function beyond the function of a judge. That function includes deciding whether or not the law would be appropriate as applied in any given case. Sometimes it would be unfair, and that is where nullification takes hold.

You may feel pot is a victimless crime.

I don't think that the pot trade is victimless at all, but I also don't think that pot should be criminalized in the first place. In any case where I am on a jury, and the only question in controversy is a marijuana law, I will nullify the law every time.

[saganista]

The biggest problem with nullification is that, with no basis at all, a significant part of the judicial system simply stands against it. This is often enough simply because they view it as an incursion upon their own roles (which in other words, means a turf-battle). Juries are the triers of fact. That much is clear and unopposable. While judges are the interpreters of law, juries are proper triers of it, yet so much as mentioning nullification in a jury room can get one bounced for violation of what a particular judge might feel are the appropriate limits of jury discretion, limits that he himself -- and no law -- will have imposed. As the result, if one finds oneself upon a jury and facing a decision over nullification, it is best to do two things. First, be mindful of the full range of your duties as a juror, and second, keep quiet about it.

[Hawkeye48]

I'd nullify a jury in a heartbeat if I thought it was the just thing to do. For the most part I don't trust the politicians that make our laws. Too frequently they choose to represent the corporate financing and special interests that keep their campaign chests flush instead of doing what's right for the average citizen on the street. But as the OP stated, I'd be very careful how I did it, because judges have from time to time been known to toss someone in jail for contempt of court for doing it.

But it would have to be for what I considered a just cause. I do think we're going to see more and more jury nullification over the next couple of decades. More and more states are doing what California's doing and tossing people in prison for 25 to life on any third felony, no matter what it is. I recall a guy who was sentenced to 25 to life for stealing a slice of pizza.

Families to Amend California's 3-Strikes: 3-Strike Stories in the News (http://www.facts1.com/general/news.htm - broken link)

[saganista]

To shift gears, this is not something that citizens should get carried away with. It is not the jury's job to usurp the legislative role. In a just society, the legitimate opportunity for jury nullification would be rare indeed. In my mind, the trial of law is an important responsibility of jurors, but acting upon that responsibility is a step to be undertaken only after due deliberation and then some...

[macmeal]

Jury nullification, by that or OTHER names, happens now and then. I believe that's a great deal of what happened in OJ Simpson's murder trial, among the more noteworthy cases. A jury says, in effect "I don't CARE what the letter of the law says--I don't think the defendant is getting a fair break, and I'm not supporting a guilty verdict". As I recall, the first notion of jury nullification came into the legal system when northern juries were called upon to "restore" the "lost property" of Southern slave owners when the slaves had escaped to the north. LEGALLY speaking, the "owner" had a right to demand that his "property" be returned. But morally and ethically, juries disagreed, and simply "nullified" the findings of the court.

I wonder if "jury nullification" also applied to the OPPOSITE situation, when racist southern juries often condemned black defendants even in the face of overwhelming evidence of innocence, just because they could? Is this also "jury nullification"? Frankly, I don't know..

It's my GUESS that jury nullification occurs at those times in history when the public comes to feel increasingly marginalized or ignored by the "system". This is one of my fears about our increasing "multiculturalism"--as people begin to feel less and less truly "represented" by an increasingly dis-trusted legal system, (like so much of the third world's), will we increasingly come to "take the law into our own hands"? After all, jury nullification, in some regards, could be called a form of "vigilanteism"---people saying, in effect, "If the LAW won't do the right thing, then I"LL do the right thing myself, despite the law"...As I see it, that's what will happen, when and if we lose our confidence and trust in the fairness of our legal system. Pretty scary thought, it seems to me...

[Skytripper]

Originally Posted by macmeal

Jury nullification, by that or OTHER names, happens now and then. I believe that's a great deal of what happened in OJ Simpson's murder trial, among the more noteworthy cases. A jury says, in effect "I don't CARE what the letter of the law says--I don't think the defendant is getting a fair break, and I'm not supporting a guilty verdict". As I recall, the first notion of jury nullification came into the legal system when northern juries were called upon to "restore" the "lost property" of Southern slave owners when the slaves had escaped to the north. LEGALLY speaking, the "owner" had a right to demand that his "property" be returned. But morally and ethically, juries disagreed, and simply "nullified" the findings of the court.

I wonder if "jury nullification" also applied to the OPPOSITE situation, when racist southern juries often condemned black defendants even in the face of overwhelming evidence of innocence, just because they could? Is this also "jury nullification"? Frankly, I don't know..

It's my GUESS that jury nullification occurs at those times in history when the public comes to feel increasingly marginalized or ignored by the "system". This is one of my fears about our increasing "multiculturalism"--as people begin to feel less and less truly "represented" by an increasingly dis-trusted legal system, (like so much of the third world's), will we increasingly come to "take the law into our own hands"? After all, jury nullification, in some regards, could be called a form of "vigilanteism"---people saying, in effect, "If the LAW won't do the right thing, then I"LL do the right thing myself, despite the law"...As I see it, that's what will happen, when and if we lose our confidence and trust in the fairness of our legal system. Pretty scary thought, it seems to me...

Very true what is stated here......but this is what happens when a large segment of society recognizes just how warped many of our laws are.
There are far too many laws that are not only, unenforcable but completely unjust or exist out of pure bigotry/racism.
Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Laws have really opened up a can of worms and many people are just to the breaking point......FED UP completely with stories that genuinely SHOW time and again......that there ARE "certain" people who are "Above the Law"......or many who are just not held accountable for their crimes in a way that the average citizen is.
Also.....the PRIORITIES of lawmakers, judges, etc. are so far skewed when they can truly justify locking up a pot smuggler (or smoker), for a far longer period of time than many MURDERS, RAPISTS and Child Molestors. There is absolutely NO excuse to release back into society.....many criminals (known to be violent or just out to scam and deceive) who are so likely to re-offend, kill and rape again? MANY should just be eliminated by a single gunshot to the head.....cheaper, quicker and more effective than lethal injection!
My point is......QUIT WASTING VALUABLE JAIL SPACE and building more and more prisons to lock up every Tom, Dick and Jane that may violate a smoking ordinance, or grow some weed or........soon....maybe spank their OWN kid for misbehaving!
Who is behind this rationale? They ARE obviously INSANE and if this is where America truly is heading.....MOD CUT!
We are already....because it IS!
IMO.....it truly IS the duty of the juror....the individual "average" citizen....to impose justice in as truthful and honest manner as possible in the most unbiased, uncorrupt fashion.......NOT that of a judge, a prosecutor, defense attorney or ANY lawmaker. Any and ALL risks that juror may take in his/her effort to seek justice should NOT be violated or threatened with his/her own possible incarceration, prosecution or persecution!
NOT IN AMERICA!