Posted on 01/23/2014 10:09:25 AM PST by Theoria
Not all juries are created equal. These days, nowhere is that clearer than in New Hampshire.
A bill introduced earlier this month in the Granite State's House of Representatives would require judges to tell juries in every criminal case that they are free to exercise a long-standing but controversial power called "nullification." That means jurors can vote to acquit defendants not only if they have reasonable doubt of guilt, but also if they simply don't agree with the underlying law.
Juries in criminal cases in the U.S. have long had the power to acquit using the nullification principle. But New Hampshire is the only state in recent years to take steps to ensure juries in the state are aware of the concept.
The New Hampshire bill is a follow-up to one the state legislature passed in 2012 that explicitly says lawyers are allowed to tell jurors about nullification. That law has led to more defense lawyers urging juries to disregard the law if they find it unfair or overly harsh, say several New Hampshire lawyers.
The action that New Hampshire has taken on nullification has raised hopes of a revival of the idea among some constitutional scholars, defense lawyers and legislators in other states who view it as a way to boost civic engagement and cut down on what they see as overly aggressive prosecutions.
"What New Hampshire is doing represents the most significant development with jury nullification in a long, long time," said Tim Lynch, the director of the libertarian Cato Institute's criminal-justice project. "We're hopeful that this marks the start of a resurgence."
Not everyone shares his enthusiasm. Nullification is an "extremely dangerous notion," said Scott Burns, executive director of the National District Attorneys Association.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
THAT is EXACTLY correct, and is why the framers included it. It is precisely why one is to be tried by a jury of his peers. It was designed so that the citizens could judge their own regarding the criminality of an individual's actions or behavior.
Without a doubt it is a double edged sword, as is historically evident in the south during the 40s and 50s. Our nation was founded on the notion that the consenting governed would maintain the moral foundation and basis of our rule of law.
If not for jury nullification, what need do we have a juries at all. Judges and prosecutors routinely tell juries that we are not judging on whether or not the accused actions were right or wrong, but rather whether or not they "broke this law". And that is wrong.
I missed your point with this comparison. We are talking about verdicts delivered for any individual trial and the justification for jury nullification based on the misuse, misapplied, or bad law as applied by the state.
I am guessing you are trying to introduce the OJ Simpson verdict (or a bad verdict all together based on social justice influence). A jury is presented with some diabolical social injustice as a reason for doubt and therefore a moral verdict is erroneously reached?
As a matter of ultimate civic protection against the state, a jury trial has inherent merits of nullification, which is easily done without a stated justifiation. A juror will be challenged by the other jurors if they are out of line on their reasoning; but the greater number of jurors acting to nullify, the less argument there is.
Great Post. The potential problem should fix itself with 12 jurors having to come to a unanimous verdict. Jury nullification should be a rare occurrence. But with some of our more aggressive and partisan prosecutors, we do see some miscarriage of justice happening, even if the cases don't finally even get to trial.
Fair warning, the last time jury nullification was used in a widespread manner was during prohibition.
The judiciary responded with the use of the injunction, which created rules around a suspect so tight that it was hard not to break them. If the suspect did break them, he would not get a jury trial, but appear before the same judge on a charge of contempt of court, for which he could get a long time in jail.
Importantly, injunction rules violate all kinds of constitutional protections. They can prohibit the use of a phone, or a vehicle to travel, free association with a listed group of individuals, living in certain neighborhoods, traveling certain routes, ownership of a list of things associated with the crime they have not been convicted of, etc.
We are talking about jurors being informed that its OK for them to vote not-guilty even when they know that the defendant is-guilty, just because they disagree with the law.
And if more of their race are convicted of that law than the others, well it must be an unjust law in their view, they nullify it.
Too bad if the victim was your family
Many jurors are unaware of the enormous power they have received. This is likely a result of a faulty public school system turning out low information Americans.
The jury is the only entity in the courtroom that has the power to judge both the evidence and the law. The Judge, the Prosecutor, and the Defense can judge the evidence but only a juror has the power to judge the evidence and the law.
An 18-month federal probe into one of Baltimore's most racially sensitive homicide cases ended yesterday when prosecutors decided not to pursue a civil rights indictment against an African-American man acquitted of killing Korean-American student Joel J. Lee.
The decision disappointed Lee's father and Asian-American leaders, who were outraged in 1995 when a nearly all-black jury acquitted Davon Neverdon. Neverdon was found not guilty despite testimony from four witnesses who said they saw him shoot Lee in the face during a $20 mugging in Northeast Baltimore.
U.S. ends rights probe in Lee death Evidence in slaying considered too weak for federal indictment January 16, 1997 Balt Sun
If it is such a dangerous notion, why is already law? Telling a jury what they should already know is not dangerous. However, it is sad that we need a law to help them complete what they should have learned in High School.
Don’t lose sight of what is “nullified”.
And here I clicked on this thread hoping to see hot women mug shots.
In what way?
Jury nullification is a time-honored practice in this country.
It's one of the things that led to prohibition's repeal, as it was getting to the point that prosecutors couldn't get convictions, because people simply disagreed with the law itself.
The article overlooks Tennessee. In Tennessee criminal court jurors are instructed by the Judge that they are the triers of the facts and the law. Jury nullification is the law in Tennessee and it’s almost never used by criminal defense lawyers. It probably has its biggest impact on the prosecutor’s decision making process. A prosecutor is not going to go to trial on a case where he has to argue that the person is guilty “because it’s the law”. Consequently, to my knowledge, there hasn’t been a simple marijuana possession case go to trial in decades.
One oddity about Stalinist Maryland is that it is the only state constitution which explicitly codifies jury nullification. No officer of the court mentions this and I suspect any defense attorney would be held in Contempt of Court if they were to mention it.
Some years ago I was in a jury pool and during “voir dire” (that’s French for “jury tampering by the judge and lawyers”) we were asked by the presiding judge if anyone had a problem with accepting his instructions on the law. up went my hand. Called to the bench, I explained to the judge that the Maryland Constitution expressly empowered ME with interpreting the law, not him. He laughed and agreed, and BOTH lawyers struck me from the jury pool.
Minutes later, out the door I went.
Thanks, cool story.
Perfect example!
I live in Maryland and I noticed that story at the time 1997 it came out in Balt Sun,
I thought it was a great example of jury nullification at that time, and I recall hearing Jesse Jackson advised blacks to do just that,
It’s amazing that I remembered it and more amazing that I found it.
I didn’t even have internet January 1997.
To my knowledge, we haven't seen this yet. The Simpson case certainly comes close. The "not guilty" verdict was credited with the doubt caused by evidence that suggested some racial insensitivity among the LAPD. Total BS and they certainly got it wrong.
I think if we get into a situation where juries acquit simply because a criminal is black, the country is in total chaos anyway. I don't know, maybe we are getting close to this day.
It happened right here in Maryland, it shows why telling the jurors that its their job to decide what laws will be enforced is misguided.
Perfect example :
An 18-month federal probe into one of Baltimore's most racially sensitive homicide cases ended yesterday when prosecutors decided not to pursue a civil rights indictment against an African-American man acquitted of killing Korean-American student Joel J. Lee.
The decision disappointed Lee's father and Asian-American leaders, who were outraged in 1995 when a nearly all-black jury acquitted Davon Neverdon. Neverdon was found not guilty despite testimony from four witnesses who said they saw him shoot Lee in the face during a $20 mugging in Northeast Baltimore.
U.S. ends rights probe in Lee death Evidence in slaying considered too weak for federal indictment January 16, 1997 Balt Sun
While this is a different issue, note that the Clinton justice department didn’t take this case up as a civil rights case.
There may or may not be a valid reason to this.
If all the witnesses testified that this murder was done for money instead of race or sex per statements from accused, then its not a federal hate crime,
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.