Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
There is a pervasive myth that three states supposedly allow jury nullification instructions: Georgia, Maryland, and Indiana. See State v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 194 W.V. 163, 175, 459 S.E.2d 906, 918 n.27 (W.V. 1995); Paul Butler, Racially Based Jury Nullification: Black Power in the Criminal Justice System, 105 Yale L.J. 677, 704 n.147 (1995). Some lists also include Oregon. This is presumably because those states have laws or constitutional provisions suggesting that criminal jurors are judges of the law and the facts. But the myth is false. Despite their differing constitutions, all four states have held that a jury has, at most, the power to acquit a guilty man, not the right, and should not be told that it may ignore or nullify the law.See, e.g., Miller v. Georgia, 260 Ga. 191, 196, 391 S.E.2d 642, 647 (Ga. 1990).
(I did not write this. I did a little Googling and came across this statement in a post on a thread on some obscure legal discussion board somewhere. Nonetheless, whoever wrote this knows what he/she is talking about - it is a totally correct statement.)
The power of the jury to judge the justice of the law and to hold laws invalid by a finding of "not guilty" for any law a juror felt was unjust or oppressive, dates back to the Magna Carta, in 1215. At the time of the Magna Carta, King John could pass any law any time he pleased. Judges and executive officers, appointed and removed at his whim, were little more than servants of the King. The oppression became so great that the nation rose up against the ruler, and the barons of England compelled their king to pledge that he would not punish a freeman for a violation of the law without the consent of his peers.no. jury nullification is not supported by the common law. nor does it derive from the magna carta, the dongan patent or any other old english laws or proclamations.
I didn't say the Constitution is a legal syllabus. I said it isn't.as for the constitution being a legal syllabus, who are you? who is some juror to decide what is constitutional and put themselves before the courts, while lying to the court to take such a stand?
If jurors have the power, why do they not have the right?There is a pervasive myth that three states supposedly allow jury nullification instructions: Georgia, Maryland, and Indiana. See State v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 194 W.V. 163, 175, 459 S.E.2d 906, 918 n.27 (W.V. 1995); Paul Butler, Racially Based Jury Nullification: Black Power in the Criminal Justice System, 105 Yale L.J. 677, 704 n.147 (1995). Some lists also include Oregon. This is presumably because those states have laws or constitutional provisions suggesting that criminal jurors are judges of the law and the facts. But the myth is false. Despite their differing constitutions, all four states have held that a jury has, at most, the power to acquit a guilty man, not the right, and should not be told that it may ignore or nullify the law.See, e.g., Miller v. Georgia, 260 Ga. 191, 196, 391 S.E.2d 642, 647 (Ga. 1990).
(I did not write this. I did a little Googling and came across this statement in a post on a thread on some obscure legal discussion board somewhere. Nonetheless, whoever wrote this knows what he/she is talking about - it is a totally correct statement.)
This is where legal analysis confuses me. How can I have the power yet not have the right to do something that is perfectly legal? Or is this expert also going to try and claim that if a jury nullifies the state has a right to throw the verdict out.
Double jeopardy is what keeps the power, and the right, to nullify in the hands of the jury.
If jurors have the power, why do they not have the right?There is a pervasive myth that three states supposedly allow jury nullification instructions: Georgia, Maryland, and Indiana. See State v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 194 W.V. 163, 175, 459 S.E.2d 906, 918 n.27 (W.V. 1995); Paul Butler, Racially Based Jury Nullification: Black Power in the Criminal Justice System, 105 Yale L.J. 677, 704 n.147 (1995). Some lists also include Oregon. This is presumably because those states have laws or constitutional provisions suggesting that criminal jurors are judges of the law and the facts. But the myth is false. Despite their differing constitutions, all four states have held that a jury has, at most, the power to acquit a guilty man, not the right, and should not be told that it may ignore or nullify the law.See, e.g., Miller v. Georgia, 260 Ga. 191, 196, 391 S.E.2d 642, 647 (Ga. 1990).
(I did not write this. I did a little Googling and came across this statement in a post on a thread on some obscure legal discussion board somewhere. Nonetheless, whoever wrote this knows what he/she is talking about - it is a totally correct statement.)
If the Law says they should not exercise their power, why does the Law not simply repeal that power?
Correct.Juries can nullify.
CorrectBut, juries are always instructed to follow the law.
No. It means the jury does not follow a judge's instructions. If nullification were against the law, why does the law not prohibit it?Nullification, by definition, means the jury does not follow the law.
The power to nullify is a component of the law as it applies to juries. If it were not, the law would clearly forbid it. The power to nullify, along with the double jeopardy provision, exist for a very specific reason.Therefore, if a jury does nullify, it is doing so in violation of the court's instruction to follow the law.
True. And the reason for this is very few contemporary juror candidates are aware of the rules imposed to restrict their power. But there are indications that FIJA is gaining ground in its effort to bring the public up to date on how to circumvent the restriction.Nullification verdicts are extremely rare for a number of reasons. First of all, many, if not all, potential nullification jurors are eliminated on voir dire, and never get seated.
Again, the power to nullify is a component of the law. If it were not it would not exist.Secondly, the court does instruct the jury to follow the law, and that is what juries do.
At the present time this is true. But if the power to nullify becomes more widely known that will change.Finally, it takes all twelve jurors to render a not guilty verdict and, once the first and second factors previously mentioned swing into effect, it is almost impossible to get all twelve jurors to agree to nullify.
Better than nothing.What does happen quite often, is a hung jury resulting from one maverick juror who is bent on nullification. But hung juries only mean a retrial, since jeopardy does not attach when the jury is hung.
If jurors have the power, why do they not have the right?
If the Law says they should not exercise their power, why does the Law not simply repeal that power?
Murder is a crime. Jury nullification is not.If jurors have the power, why do they not have the right?
you have the power to murder someone too. but you do not have the right to do so.
And the jury box is where the citizens decide of the justness of laws foisted upon them by mere politicians.....The litany of which curiously includes NO LAW which precludes them from doing so.
It is exactly that, as is revealed in the recorded history of and need for Jury Nullification, which you purposefully ignore.you talk about jury nullification like it is some noble thing protecting people FROM oppressive laws.
What you and others of your perpetually intimidated minority mindset are attempting to do by impeding the intended right to nullify is analogous to impeding the lawful sale of rope to prevent lynching.if used, can't it as easily, and more likely, be used by people who don't like being constrained FROM doing things like discriminating; or lynching people; or engaging in hate crimes?
And there is more than one way to kill a cat.there are courts and there is a process.
Murder is a crime. Jury nullification is not.If jurors have the power, why do they not have the right?
you have the power to murder someone too. but you do not have the right to do so.
Try again.
It is exactly that, as is revealed in the recorded history of and need for Jury Nullification, which you purposefully ignore, clearly reveals.you talk about jury nullification like it is some noble thing protecting people FROM oppressive laws.
What you and others of your perpetually intimidated minority mindset are attempting to do by impeding the intended right to nullify is analogous to impeding the lawful sale of rope to prevent lynching.if used, can't it as easily, and more likely, be used by people who don't like being constrained FROM doing things like discriminating; or lynching people; or engaging in hate crimes?
And there is more than one way to kill a cat.there are courts and there is a process.
Jury Nullification, which is a power contained in the Law, enables a jury to weigh both evidence and the Law. But the contrived instructions issued by judges that endeavor to circumvent that power are easy enough to ignore by anyone who understands the oppressive purpose of such instructions.And the jury box is where the citizens decide of the justness of laws foisted upon them by mere politicians.....The litany of which curiously includes NO LAW which precludes them from doing so.
No it doesn't. That happens at the BALLOT BOX.
The jury debates the evidence, NOT THE LAW.
Would you want your fate decided by some judge who has a personal, political or financial interest in sending you to prison whether you deserve such punishment or not?Would you want your fate decided at the hands of the mob masses without any rights under the law as the mob decides what laws are just and which ones are not?
You need to re-think that one.
If jurors have the power, why do they not have the right?
you have the power to murder someone too. but you do not have the right to do so.
because the 'power' is not a legal one which requires repeal.If the Law says they should not exercise their power, why does the Law not simply repeal that power?
The most famous nullification case is the 1735 trial of John Peter Zenger, charged with printing seditious libels of the Governor of the Colony of New York, William Cosby. Despite the fact that Zenger clearly printed the alleged libels, the only issue the court said the jury was open to decide as the truth or falsity of the statements was ruled to be irrelevant, the jury returned with a verdict of "Not Guilty." Jury nullification appeared at other times in our history when the government has tried to enforce morally repugnant or unpopular laws. In the early 1800s, nullification was practiced in cases brought under the Alien and Sedition Act. In the mid 1800s, northern juries practiced nullification in prosecutions brought against individuals accused of harboring slaves in violation of the Fugitive Slave Laws. And in the Prohibition Era of the 1930s, many juries practiced nullification in prosecutions brought against individuals accused of violating alcohol control laws.
More recent examples of nullification might include acquittals of "mercy killers," including Dr. Jack Kevorkian, and minor drug offenders.
I would expect this rather stereotypical, "Move to Russia if you don't like it," response from some tobacco-chewing yokel rather than someone with the credentials you've boasted. But I suppose there is something in the water down there.I respect that and if you want to move to a country where they allow a jury to decide your fate when charged on opinion and the evidence and not the law and the evidence that is your right.
But we do not want mob rule here.
We are a nation of laws here and we want the US Constitution, not mob rule of the masses, to instruct juries as to the LAW.
Delta is ready when you are.
Jury charges and the judge's instructions are following the law.
The law the Legislature of that state has passed.
If it isn't then the case is automatically appealed based on that and an appellate court rules in favor of the defendant if they were wrongly convicted if a judge's charges and/or instructions did not follow THE LAW.
You folks can dance around it all you want but it is impossible to polish a turd.
Murder is a crime. Jury nullification is not.you have the power to murder someone too. but you do not have the right to do so.
Try again.
Under your theory juries should be able to discuss the case with anyone, read anything and everything in the media about the case, research everything they want to and disregard all the evidence and facts presented at trial because their aunt Hazel from Climax, Ga. believes the defendant is cute, their horoscope said it was a bad day, her palm reader advised that the defendant was not gulity and they thought the Judge needed a hair cut.
Anything and everything does not go in a court of law in a civilized society.
We were founded as a nation of LAWS, not men and their differing religions, principles, morals and other prejudices.
