30

What is jury nullification and what are its origins and history? What actions by a juror would be considered nullification?

19

Quoting from here,

Jury nullification occurs when a jury returns a verdict of "Not Guilty" despite its belief that the defendant is guilty of the violation charged. The jury in effect nullifies a law that it believes is either immoral or wrongly applied to the defendant whose fate they are charged with deciding.

In essence, a jury decides that a law should not be legal in the situation, and as such the charge is unwarranted.

One of the first cases was in the trial of John Peter Zenger, in 1735, where a law against libels was used against him, and subsequently nullified by a jury. It was subsequently used against the famous Alien and Sedition Acts, as well as The Fugitive Slave Laws.

Zenger was the first case in America; in 1670, it was used in the case of William Penn and William Mead, who were acquitted of "illegal assembly" as Quakers. In an interesting twist, the jurors were imprisoned, as jury nullification was not explicitly legal, but they were later released.

Interestingly enough, according to The New York Times

In 1895, the Supreme Court ruled that jurors had no right, during trials, to be told about nullification. The court did not say that jurors didn’t have the power, or that they couldn’t be told about it, but only that judges were not required to instruct them on it during a trial.

The Times also wrote that nullification had been used against laws against alcohol and gay marriage, though it did not cite specific cases.

  • 3
    It's worth noting that jurors in the UK are prohibited from disclosing details of their deliberations even after the trial is over, so it's impossible to know for sure when nullification occurs. – Flup May 27 '15 at 15:31
  • @Flup Interesting. So in theory, could there have been prior cases? – HDE 226868 May 27 '15 at 15:31
  • 3
    In theory it could happen in every case :) – Flup May 27 '15 at 15:32
  • Some great examples of getting people off of a crime that they legally committed. I wonder, are their recorded cases where Jury nullification were used to increase a sentence past what would normally legally be allowed? Either finding the person guilty for a crime they admit he did not actually do or just increases the severity of the punishment past the normal maximum? – Jonathon Nov 21 '15 at 19:57
4

A jury is charged with finding fact, and is supposed to take the law as given to them by a judge.

"Jury nullification" occurs when a jury bends the law to produce a desired result. This was made possible by English common law, which gave juries great latitude in determining what they would rule on. The underlying power may go all the way back to the Magna Carta of 1215.

One example occurred in "Dickensian" England where theft of an item value at one shilling (twelve pence) or greater carried the death penalty. In order to spare a young defendant this fate, the jury valued a diamond necklace at only 11 pence.

  • 2
    FYI, at least one advocacy group would dispute your first assertion: the Fully Informed Jury Association – feetwet May 28 '15 at 0:27
  • 1
    @feetwet: I wrote that's how a jury is "charged," not what they do. I have been on a jury and was "charged" that way. – Libra May 28 '15 at 14:15

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.