Posted on 08/07/2013 1:37:14 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The response was predictable, even to those who had maintained hope for a different outcome. After the jury found George Zimmerman not guilty of murdering Trayvon Martin, many cities erupted into protests of what was perceived as a fundamentally unfair and racially-biased verdict that was the result of a broken justice system. Among those protesting that Zimmerman should be punished, some admitted that the flaw was actually found within the Florida law which departs significantly from the common law by allowing individuals who initiate confrontations to use deadly force to defend themselves without a duty to escape. Florida's Stand Your Ground statutory language, although not the focus of Zimmerman's defense, was incorporated directly into the jury instructions, which stated, "[i]f George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force[.]"
One juror has already come forward to admit that she felt Zimmerman was guilty of killing Martin but that the jury could not find him guilty under the law. Most legal analysts concur in that view, with many lamenting that Zimmerman could not be convicted of either second-degree murder or manslaughter under Florida law, even if he is morally responsible or might have been convicted under traditional common law standards. Zimmerman was inevitably going to be acquitted because the prosecution had not disproven his self-defense claim beyond a reasonable doubt.
Despite the apparent, if depressing, clarity of the legal issues, however, there are those who believe that justice could have been served if the jury had disregarded the law and found Zimmerman guilty. This is a phenomenon known as "reverse jury nullification," and its proponents should carefully consider the consequences of what they are suggesting. Releasing juries from their duty to apply the law to the facts of a case will only increase the potential for injustice and bias.
Jury nullification [PDF] in Anglo-American law enjoys a long, documented history that is filled with references to free speech and victory over tyranny. The typical argument in favor of nullification is that juries have a right to express disapproval of a law or system of laws by refusing to convict defendants even though the prosecution has met its burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It is a populist, grass-roots branch of the checks and balances system. Recently, and true to its legacy of invalidating "victimless crimes," jury nullification has become a popular technique for those who oppose the war on drugs or laws deemed to be an excessive governmental intrusion, such as bans against raw milk. However, nullification has also been rightfully criticized due to its use by all-white juries to indemnify white defendants who committed racially-motivated crimes.
By comparison, reverse jury nullification receives limited press. Yet, like nullification, reverse nullification has played a role in perpetuating racial injustice. There can be no denying that all-white juries have convicted black defendants based on a belief that the defendants should be punished rather than on evidentiary proof. The shameful show trials of the Scottsboro Boys which produced, but did not culminate in, the historic decision of Powell v. Alabama should serve as a reminder that juries are susceptible to the same hate and fear that warp a legal system. While most law students study Powell for the rule that defendants in capital trials have a due process right to counsel, the facts of the case and the numerous, farcical trial proceedings illustrate how significantly — and how recently — the American criminal justice system could be manipulated to convict black defendants based on flimsy evidence because prosecutors could rely on the racist sympathies of their juries.
The most abhorrent consequence of reverse jury nullification is that it results in punishment for a defendant who has either not broken a recognized law or who has not been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Reverse nullification licenses juries to apply their own personal prejudices and idiosyncratic values rather than the orderly, unbiased, application of fact to law. The risk is not hypothetical. An empirical study [PDF] found that juries given nullification instructions spent less time considering evidence. They were also more likely to convict "unsympathetic" defendants, such as drunk drivers and more likely to acquit "sympathetic" defendants, like those who kill out of mercy. Similar to Lon Fuller's Rex in The Morality of Law, juries permitted to nullify can change laws to fit circumstances and characteristics of individual defendants until the results become completely unpredictable and impossible to follow, increasing the instability and lack of faith in the criminal justice system. While this charge can easily be leveled against traditional nullification, the difference with reverse jury nullification is that, instead of sending a guilty defendant home, an innocent defendant goes to jail.
Of course, Zimmerman wasn't altogether innocent. He admitted he shot Martin and the facts show that he ignored multiple opportunities to avoid the confrontation that ultimately led to Martin's death. Had it not been for the peculiar nature of Florida's self-defense laws, he may have been convicted. But the fact remains that, under the law as it existed then and as it exists now, the only way for the jury to convict him would be to ignore the law and the evidence.
Admittedly, in the case of reverse nullification, the defendant can still appeal or the trial court can set aside the verdict, but neither options are foolproof. More generally, if the argument for nullification is that the legal system is so flawed that it must be subject to an additional check by the jury, then it seems irrational to remove existing restrictions by disregarding evidentiary standards or requirements of a crime. Zimmerman has been accused of vigilantism and Stand Your Ground laws of encouraging vigilantism. Both are valid claims, but the solution to vigilante justice is not to encourage vigilante juries.
In its closing argument, the prosecution hinted that the jury could use "common sense" if they found that the evidence and witness testimony were not enough to convict. It was not a direct call for reverse nullification, but it certainly acknowledged what so many were already thinking: the prosecution had failed to make its case. Understandably, the prosecution, and those who wanted Zimmerman to be convicted, hoped that the jury would look past that infirmity and focus on the terrible prospect of finding that a man can pursue and kill an unarmed teenager without punishment. The jury, however, apparently listened to their instructions: "If you fail to follow the law, your verdict will be a miscarriage of justice. Even if you do not like the laws that must be applied, you must use them. For two centuries we have lived by the Constitution and the law. No juror has the right to violate rules we all share."
Florida's governor Rick Scott has shown no interest in changing or repealing the state's self-defense laws. It is tempting for opponents to advocate any means necessary, including jury nullification, to invalidate Stand Your Ground or combat biased application of the law, but doing so will only exacerbate the belief that the American criminal justice system is broken and run amok. As the emotional interview with Juror B29 indicates, applying facts to the law can require painful discipline and can lead to equally painful outcomes. There is no reason to believe, however, that giving juries the authority to ignore the law will achieve more just results. To the contrary, as history has shown, it will accomplish quite the opposite.
********
Liz Clark Rinehart is a member of the Maryland Law Review. She has volunteered with the Mississippi Center for Justice and the Maryland Office of the Public Defender.
Suggested citation: Liz Clark Rinehart, The Zimmerman Verdict and Jury Nullification, JURIST - Dateline, Aug. 7, 2013, http://jurist.org/dateline/2013/08/liz-rinehart-jury-nullification.php
Wasn't there a black juror who was excused by the prosecution during jury selection? I seem to recall that one black juror was dismissed for admitting to watching Fox News.
Blah, blah, blah, racist, blah, blah, blah, racist, blah, blah, blah, racist, blah, blah, blah, racist, blah, blah, blah, racist, blah, blah, blah, racist, blah, blah, blah, racist, blah, blah, blah, racist, blah, blah, blah, racist, blah, blah, blah, racist, blah, blah, blah, racist, blah, blah, blah, racist, blah, blah, blah, racist ..........
I know the cases are two seperate ones, not even in the same ballpark, but I never saw one white person dancing, screaming and taunting with the ‘not guilty’ verdict like I did with black people over the OJ verdict.
For white people, it is one case. For black people, they take a guilty verdict against a black person as a slur against their entire race.
Still scratching my head over that.
If the head was split,you must acquit.And they did.
The article was an iffy piece from the get-go, but went right over the cliff there. The authoress is retarded, ser.
The interesting thing is that this is a lie.
The significance of this lie (presuming this piece was not written BEFORE the verdict) is that the grievance industry wants us to BELIEVE there is great public upset over the verdict, when that is obviously and demonstrably untrue.
The dog did not bark.
And will be an officer of the court two years hence.
Certain groups of blacks have created their own mythology regarding the Zimmerman case, facts, be damned.
All of these people so upset with the Zimmerman verdict will not ever mention the idea of self-defense. It is as if there is no such thing. I guess if they are attacked they think you just cannot fight back, if you do and kill your attacker you are guilty of murder. Insanity.
exactly, everything about this article is simply false and dishonest
I'm pretty aggrieved about that. I have about two tons of unsold popcorn.
There is no reason to believe, however, that giving juries the authority to ignore the law will achieve more just results. To the contrary, as history has shown, it will accomplish quite the opposite.
She also makes a good point about the courts becoming wildly unpredictable and unjust if nullification becomes common (which is a situation that presently exists). She can learn the facts, if she wants to, but good reasoning skills can be harder to come by. She has within her the capacity to become a first-rate attorney, if she wants to. That last part remains to be seen.
It does give you a nice litmus test you can use in your daily life: If they think Zimmerman should have been sent down the river, then they don’t think *you* have the right to defend yourself, either. Think about that. That puts them on the side of needing to be kept in the dark about your carrying status.
The thing is, the REALLY important thing, is that there are not "all those people" so upset. It's like those old war movies where the five survivors move around and make lots of noise so as to seem like a company.
The whites are not upset. The blacks know very well who and what Trayvon was.
Only the "leaders" are pretending to be upset - and nobody's following.
What's happened since we've been hearing this?
Case 1: 2 14 yr old boys, followed a kidnapper on their bicycles, with the kidnapper dumping his little girl victim out on the street and taking off. The boys (black) were hailed as heroes. What did they do differently from Zimmerman? Arguably, it was more dangerous. They were unarmed. They followed a violent kidnapper driving a car, not just a suspicious person on foot, who had not committed any crime up to that point at that location.
Case 2: a 64 yr old man is being charged with child endangerment for NOT intervening when 3 perps, 15 yr old blacks are beating the crap out of a 15 yr vic (white). He followed the new Zimmerman Doctrine, don't get involved and call the cops. Bingo!
Lesson: Do anything to demonize George Zimmerman. Logic, rationality, common sense must all be thrown out, even by wet behind the ears Class of 2015 law students.
The author should be really revolutionary and defend Zimmerman and defend Stand Your Ground, instead of going along with the crowd. Son, stupid and sheeplike is no way to go through life. Try thinking.
“Zimmerman ought not have left his truck and attempted to see where the suspicious person went.”
When did that become a crime?
He would have won the trial even in New York State, because he couldn’t retreat when Travon on him. Only once the assault occurred would he have had an obligation to retreat in New York, and in this case it was impossible.
And here I was concerned that I would have no Assclown input to my day. I am glad that that has been resolved.
There are times I wish that I had the ability to grab people like this around the throat and scream into their face, "George Zimmerman did not initiate the confrontation with Trayvon Martin! It was Trayvon who initiated the confrontation! George Zimmerman was ONLY attempting to visually locate the suspicious person, when Martin approached him!"
She also makes a good point about the courts becoming wildly unpredictable and unjust if nullification becomes common (which is a situation that presently exists).
As late as the 1950s the Supreme Court wrote that a jury has both the right and the obligation to adjudge both the offense and the law itself; this is the third box which acts as a check on out of control governments (soap box, voting box, jury box, cartridge box).
As I recall, Prohibition (the 18th amendment) was repealed in part because prosecutors decided that prosecuting the suppliers of alcohol was ineffective, so they went after the demand by arresting people who drank alcohol; and juries then refused to convict them.
The only reason that more people are not acquitted of drug offenses is that judges now excuse from jury pools anyone who even knows what “jury nullification” means (which violates the right to a jury of your peers).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.