Should juries be told about nullification in certain cases?

MaggieD · Mar 12, 2017

Jury nullification is a finding by a trial jury in contradiction to the jury's belief about the facts of the case. This may happen in both civil and criminal trials. In a civil trial, a jury nullifies by finding a defendant not liable, even though members of the jury may believe the defendant is liable. In a criminal trial, a jury nullifies by acquitting a defendant, even though the members of the jury may believe that the defendant did the illegal act, but they do not believe he/she should be punished for it. This may occur when members of the jury disagree with the law the defendant has been charged with breaking, or believe that the law should not be applied in that particular case.

A father who kills the man who killed his little boy as he walks from justic on a technicality.
An 80-year-old man who helps his dying wife commit suicide.
A drug dealer who is charged with selling marijuana.

We are supposed to be judged by a jury of our peers. Why are juries not told they have this option? Why have we put the legal eagles, attorneys and judges, in charge of whether or not to prosecute? Why do the people not have a voice?

Judges don't tell juries they have the right to nullify a law in a particular case. Complicated jury instructions are given which say things like, "If the jury finds the defendant smothered his wife with a pillow, you must find the defendant is guilty of ...whatever..." Why, among all of the options, is the jury not given information on one of its most important rights? Jury nullification.

Do you think juries should be instructed as to jury nullification?

Sherman123 · Mar 12, 2017

I think juries have the right to nullify; but I don't think the court should instruct them about nullification, nor should defense attorney's be able make such a plea. Jury nullification should occur organically in those tremendous cases where it is required. It should not become routine.

Kal'Stang · Mar 12, 2017

MaggieD said:
A father who kills the man who killed his little boy as he walks from justic on a technicality.

An 80-year-old man who helps his dying wife commit suicide.

A drug dealer who is charged with selling marijuana.

We are supposed to be judged by a jury of our peers. Why are juries not told they have this option? Why have we put the legal eagles, attorneys and judges, in charge of whether or not to prosecute? Why do the people not have a voice?

Judges don't tell juries they have the right to nullify a law in a particular case. Complicated jury instructions are given which say things like, "If the jury finds the defendant smothered his wife with a pillow, you must find the defendant is guilty of ...whatever..." Why, among all of the options, is the jury not given information on one of its most important rights? Jury nullification.

Do you think juries should be instructed as to jury nullification?

I am a huge proponent of Jury Nullification. So my answer is an emphatic YES. But not just in certain situations. It should be told about in every single case because it is a Right held by the People as indicated about and told about by our history and past SCOTUS judges. The fact that if you support jury nullification can get you barred from being on a jury or that if you talk about it during jury deliberations can get the case labeled as a mistrial is completely wrong and a violation of our Rights.

As Chief Justice John Jay once said:

It may not be amiss, here, Gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule, that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. On this, and on every other occasion, however, we have no doubt, you will pay that respect, which is due to the opinion of the court: For, as on the one hand, it is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumbable, that the court are the best judges of the law. But still both objects are lawfully, within your power of decision.

I have that quote (along with others) saved on my computer as whenever this subject is brought up I feel I should give some sort of proof as it will inevitably be asked for.

holbritter · Mar 12, 2017

MaggieD said:
A father who kills the man who killed his little boy as he walks from justic on a technicality.

An 80-year-old man who helps his dying wife commit suicide.

A drug dealer who is charged with selling marijuana.

We are supposed to be judged by a jury of our peers. Why are juries not told they have this option? Why have we put the legal eagles, attorneys and judges, in charge of whether or not to prosecute? Why do the people not have a voice?

Judges don't tell juries they have the right to nullify a law in a particular case. Complicated jury instructions are given which say things like, "If the jury finds the defendant smothered his wife with a pillow, you must find the defendant is guilty of ...whatever..." Why, among all of the options, is the jury not given information on one of its most important rights? Jury nullification.

Do you think juries should be instructed as to jury nullification?

Never heard this mentioned before. I'm guessing a lot of your average jurists haven't either.

holbritter · Mar 12, 2017

Sherman123 said:
I think juries have the right to nullify; but I don't think the court should instruct them about nullification, nor should defense attorney's be able make such a plea. Jury nullification should occur organically in those tremendous cases where it is required. It should not become routine.

How can it happen organically if people aren't aware it's an option?

ttwtt78640 · Mar 12, 2017

If the court (the government) tells the jury that this charge (law?) may simply be ignored in this case then what use is pretending to have "equal" justice under the law? Obviously, a defense lawyer or the defendant may make such an appeal to the jury but it seems wrong, IMHO, for either the prosecutor or the judge to do so.

Since very few cases actually go to a jury trial our "just us" system is already rigged to allow plea deals to serve as a means to get a reduced charge and (known) lighter than "usual" sentence. If someone does elect to go to a jury trial then perhaps the state/judge should inform the jury of the plea offered (if any) that was refused and that may serve as the new maximum penalty/charge that may be imposed. Too often, IMHO, one is offered a deal and pressured into accepting it with the threat of facing a harsher charge, (unobtainable?) bail and a harsh sentence if they refuse to play along nicely, waive their right to a jury trial and plead guilty.

Brewdog · Mar 12, 2017

Nullification is a double edged sword. It can be used to prevent the government from running roughshod over the citizenry with unjust laws. But it can also be used to prevent the government from prosecuting just laws (as in the acquittal of Klansmen for lynchings).

There certainly a place for nullification. If I were a juror and was incensed by the railroading of a fellow citizen for a law I consider to be unjust, there's nothing that would convince me to find the defendant guilty. Whether he committed the crime or not.

Why do we love this trial by jury? Because it prevents the hand of oppression from cutting you off ... This gives me comfort—that, as long as I have existence, my neighbors will protect me. -Patrick Henry

ocean515 · Mar 12, 2017

MaggieD said:
A father who kills the man who killed his little boy as he walks from justic on a technicality.

An 80-year-old man who helps his dying wife commit suicide.

A drug dealer who is charged with selling marijuana.

We are supposed to be judged by a jury of our peers. Why are juries not told they have this option? Why have we put the legal eagles, attorneys and judges, in charge of whether or not to prosecute? Why do the people not have a voice?

Judges don't tell juries they have the right to nullify a law in a particular case. Complicated jury instructions are given which say things like, "If the jury finds the defendant smothered his wife with a pillow, you must find the defendant is guilty of ...whatever..." Why, among all of the options, is the jury not given information on one of its most important rights? Jury nullification.

Do you think juries should be instructed as to jury nullification?

Thinking carefully, I would say No.

A jury should not be deliberating on the merits of a law, but on the merits of the case presented to them.

It is the people, through their elected representatives, who get to determine the merits of a law.

If juries are allowed to determine who must be held accountable, and who should not be held accountable, we've lost the overall underlying principle of laws.

The reason there are Judges is to take the juries findings, and then judge what appropriate action should taken from their conclusions. That is where the merits of the law in any given case can be applied.

Sherman123 · Mar 12, 2017

holbritter said:
How can it happen organically if people aren't aware it's an option?

The way its usually happened: moral outrage leads a jury to refuse to return a guilty verdict. Some estimates place nullification verdicts as high as 2-4%, with the increase in hung juries over the past few decades stemming from an increased tendency towards nullification tendencies among jurors. I think this is an adequate number and indicates that juries generally exercise this power appropriately.

I think the consequences of openly allowing jurors to weigh the merits of the law as applied to each case brought before them, or worse allowing attorneys to make that case, would be devastating to the legal system.

MaggieD · Mar 12, 2017

Sherman123 said:
I think juries have the right to nullify; but I don't think the court should instruct them about nullification, nor should defense attorney's be able make such a plea. Jury nullification should occur organically in those tremendous cases where it is required. It should not become routine.

Kal'Stang said:
I am a huge proponent of Jury Nullification. So my answer is an emphatic YES. But not just in certain situations. It should be told about in every single case because it is a Right held by the People as indicated about and told about by our history and past SCOTUS judges. The fact that if you support jury nullification can get you barred from being on a jury or that if you talk about it during jury deliberations can get the case labeled as a mistrial is completely wrong and a violation of our Rights.

As Chief Justice John Jay once said:

I have that quote (along with others) saved on my computer as whenever this subject is brought up I feel I should give some sort of proof as it will inevitably be asked for.

holbritter said:
Never heard this mentioned before. I'm guessing a lot of your average jurists haven't either.

These are such great responses.

Sherman, I understand your opinion. Most people, though, are completely unaware of the right to jury nullification. It's an important right.

Kal, thank you for that quotation. And isn't it just SO wrong that, not not is that right kept from juries, but anyone who introduces it is in serious trouble? If jurors were aware of jury nullification, MJ would have been legal years ago.

An atty told me never to mention it, assuming I was on a case where I wanted to, but instead to simply hang the jury with my Not Guilty verdict.

Holbritter. You're not alone. Most people haven't.

MaggieD · Mar 12, 2017

ocean515 said:
Thinking carefully, I would say No.

A jury should not be deliberating on the merits of a law, but on the merits of the case presented to them.

It is the people, through their elected representatives, who get to determine the merits of a law.

If juries are allowed to determine who must be held accountable, and who should not be held accountable, we've lost the overall underlying principle of laws.

The reason there are Judges is to take the juries findings, and then judge what appropriate action should taken from their conclusions. That is where the merits of the law in any given case can be applied.

So then you disagree with the Chief Justice of SCOTUS? (Thanks, Kal)

It may not be amiss, here, Gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule, that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. On this, and on every other occasion, however, we have no doubt, you will pay that respect, which is due to the opinion of the court: For, as on the one hand, it is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumbable, that the court are the best judges of the law. But still both objects are lawfully, within your power of decision

ocean515 · Mar 12, 2017

MaggieD said:
So then you disagree with the Chief Justice of SCOTUS? (Thanks, Kal)

1794 is a long way from 2017.

Further, according to the history of the case, in Georgia vs. Brailsford, Chief Justice Jay was providing instructions to a special jury not typical of other juries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_v._Brailsford_(1794)

The most famous case of probable jury nullification I can think of is the People of the State of California v. Orenthal James Simpson.

ttwtt78640 · Mar 12, 2017

Brewdog said:
Nullification is a double edged sword. It can be used to prevent the government from running roughshod over the citizenry with unjust laws. But it can also be used to prevent the government from prosecuting just laws (as in the acquittal of Klansmen for lynchings).

There certainly a place for nullification. If I were a juror and was incensed by the railroading of a fellow citizen for a law I consider to be unjust, there's nothing that would convince me to find the defendant guilty. Whether he committed the crime or not.

Why do we love this trial by jury? Because it prevents the hand of oppression from cutting you off ... This gives me comfort—that, as long as I have existence, my neighbors will protect me. -Patrick Henry

Some laws and their sentences seem unjust. For example driving while following all other road safety rules without a license, registration and/or liability insurance (failure to pay government mandated privilege fees) is often defined as a serious crime with jail time as the sentence while running a stop sign or illegal passing (crossing into the opposing lane) placing others in serious danger is treated much more leniently with the option to pay a (relatively) small fine.

The state is highly unlikely to want to inform jurors that laws placing the state (we the people?) in danger of losing revenue are purposefully assigned higher penalties than those placing the lives/safety of other mere citizens in danger by committing actual moving violations. If I were ever to serve on such a (lack of permission fee payment) case I might consider that as reason to vote not guilty since "the victim" allegedly includes me.

Kal'Stang · Mar 12, 2017

ocean515 said:
Thinking carefully, I would say No.

A jury should not be deliberating on the merits of a law, but on the merits of the case presented to them.

It is the people, through their elected representatives, who get to determine the merits of a law.

If juries are allowed to determine who must be held accountable, and who should not be held accountable, we've lost the overall underlying principle of laws.

The reason there are Judges is to take the juries findings, and then judge what appropriate action should taken from their conclusions. That is where the merits of the law in any given case can be applied.

Problem is that there are lots of instances where laws have been passed that were not advocated for by the majority of people, or even a decent amount of minority people. But instead where advocated for by people with money that could get to be heard just because they had money. Most, if not all, politicians don't even read the mail that is sent to them by their constituents. Politicians simply don't listen to The People unless there is some sort of gain in it for them.

Regardless, even if a law is Just that doesn't mean that that law should be applied in any and all circumstances. Which is one of the major reasons to have Jury Nullification. JN recognizes that there are instances where while the person yes technically broke the law it doesn't mean that the should be applied to that person due to certain circumstances.

Kal'Stang · Mar 12, 2017

ocean515 said:
1794 is a long way from 2017.

Further, according to the history of the case, in Georgia vs. Brailsford, Chief Justice Jay was providing instructions to a special jury not typical of other juries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_v._Brailsford_(1794)

The most famous case of probable jury nullification I can think of is the People of the State of California v. Orenthal James Simpson.

Want another more recent quote? I've got lots saved up on my computer...

“If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by a judge, and contrary to the evidence... If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision.”
United States v. Moylan, 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, 1969, 417 F.2d at 1006.

Can juries abuse Jury Nullification? Yes. There is proven history of that. Despite that abuse however it has done far more good than bad.

If you wish to understand Jury Nullification and why it is so important to have read up on the Magna Carta and the Peter Zenger Trial.

Brewdog · Mar 12, 2017

ttwtt78640 said:
Some laws and their sentences seem unjust.

I can't get over how a criminal can repeatedly bash someone in the face and be sentenced to community service for battery. But push a police officer backwards and now he's doing time in the Big House. It's because that's viewed as disrespecting the law, and suddenly a simple shove evokes a reaction from the court, "How DARE you, sir!"

ocean515 · Mar 12, 2017

Kal'Stang said:
Problem is that there are lots of instances where laws have been passed that were not advocated for by the majority of people, or even a decent amount of minority people. But instead where advocated for by people with money that could get to be heard just because they had money. Most, if not all, politicians don't even read the mail that is sent to them by their constituents. Politicians simply don't listen to The People unless there is some sort of gain in it for them.

Regardless, even if a law is Just that doesn't mean that that law should be applied in any and all circumstances. Which is one of the major reasons to have Jury Nullification. JN recognizes that there are instances where while the person yes technically broke the law it doesn't mean that the should be applied to that person due to certain circumstances.

Anarchy is not a proper foundation for any Nation.

It is not unusual for judges to overrule jury findings. This "judgement not withstanding verdict" or "judgement of acquittal" is more common than most people probably realize. It is used to apply judgement on the application of the law related to the specific case.

For example, the 80 year old who ends their spouses suffering with a bullet to the head. The jury is tasked simply with the question of guilt or innocence. The Judge is tasked with applying the application of the law. Guilt may be obvious, but penalty is discretionary. That is how it should be.

ttwtt78640 · Mar 12, 2017

Brewdog said:
I can't get over how a criminal can repeatedly bash someone in the face and be sentenced to community service for battery. But push a police officer backwards and now he's doing time in the Big House. It's because that's viewed as disrespecting the law, and suddenly a simple shove evokes a reaction from the court, "How DARE you, sir!"

Welcome to the "just us" system. Another head scratcher is someone being stoned on drugs while committing a violent crime is somehow a mitigating, rather than aggravating, factor. The "disease" somehow helped to cause that crime rather than the perp's inner (evil?) self being voluntarily freed from sober inhibition.

Kal'Stang · Mar 12, 2017

ocean515 said:
Anarchy is not a proper foundation for any Nation.

It is not unusual for judges to overrule jury findings. This "judgement not withstanding verdict" or "judgement of acquittal" is more common than most people probably realize. It is used to apply judgement on the application of the law related to the specific case.

For example, the 80 year old who ends their spouses suffering with a bullet to the head. The jury is tasked simply with the question of guilt or innocence. The Judge is tasked with applying the application of the law. Guilt may be obvious, but penalty is discretionary. That is how it should be.

Anarchy is not what happens with Jury Nullification. Nor can it happen. Implying that it can disregards how society is.

And no, judges may not overrule any juries findings of acquittal. They can overrule a jury verdict of the "death penalty" applying for instance. But no judge can reverse an acquittal. Which is what Jury Nullification is about. Acquittals.

ocean515 · Mar 12, 2017

Kal'Stang said:
Want another more recent quote? I've got lots saved up on my computer...

Can juries abuse Jury Nullification? Yes. There is proven history of that. Despite that abuse however it has done far more good than bad.

If you wish to understand Jury Nullification and why it is so important to have read up on the Magna Carta and the Peter Zenger Trial.

You are welcome to post all the quotes you wish.

In the case you cited, the 4th Circuit wrote this:

417 F2d 1002 United States v. Moylan | OpenJurist

No less an authority than Dean Pound has expressed the opinion that "Jury lawlessness is the great corrective of law in its actual administration."12 However, this is not to say that the jury should be encouraged in their "lawlessness," and by clearly stating to the jury that they may disregard the law, telling them that they may decide according to their prejudices or consciences (for there is no check to insure that the judgment is based upon conscience rather than prejudice), we would indeed be negating the rule of law in favor of the rule of lawlessness. This should not be allowed.

ttwtt78640 · Mar 12, 2017

ocean515 said:
Anarchy is not a proper foundation for any Nation.

It is not unusual for judges to overrule jury findings. This "judgement not withstanding verdict" or "judgement of acquittal" is more common than most people probably realize. It is used to apply judgement on the application of the law related to the specific case.

For example, the 80 year old who ends their spouses suffering with a bullet to the head. The jury is tasked simply with the question of guilt or innocence. The Judge is tasked with applying the application of the law. Guilt may be obvious, but penalty is discretionary. That is how it should be.

Hmm... OK, substitute ending the suffering of their 18 year old child and see if the jury's guilty verdict was equally denied a "normal" sentence. The homicide law either does or does not contain a "mercy killing" exception.

ocean515 · Mar 12, 2017

Kal'Stang said:
Anarchy is not what happens with Jury Nullification. Nor can it happen. Implying that it can disregards how society is.

And no, judges may not overrule any juries findings of acquittal. They can overrule a jury verdict of the "death penalty" applying for instance. But no judge can reverse an acquittal. Which is what Jury Nullification is about. Acquittals.

With respect, you are wrong.

Kal'Stang · Mar 12, 2017

ocean515 said:
You are welcome to post all the quotes you wish.

In the case you cited, the 4th Circuit wrote this:

417 F2d 1002 United States v. Moylan | OpenJurist

No less an authority than Dean Pound has expressed the opinion that "Jury lawlessness is the great corrective of law in its actual administration."12 However, this is not to say that the jury should be encouraged in their "lawlessness," and by clearly stating to the jury that they may disregard the law, telling them that they may decide according to their prejudices or consciences (for there is no check to insure that the judgment is based upon conscience rather than prejudice), we would indeed be negating the rule of law in favor of the rule of lawlessness. This should not be allowed.

But it is allowed. In fact the ONLY way to get rid of Jury Nullification is to remove jury trials period. In the hundreds of years that Jury Nullification has been around (ever since the magna carta) not once has anarchy even been close to happening. So such an argument is based on nothing more than fear.

ocean515 · Mar 12, 2017

ttwtt78640 said:
Hmm... OK, substitute ending the suffering of their 18 year old child and see if the jury's guilty verdict was equally denied a "normal" sentence. The homicide law either does or does not contain a "mercy killing" exception.

I don't believe homicide laws contain a mercy killing exception. However, I think many people are familiar with Judges passing light sentences when juries have found defendants guilty of murder in such cases.

I'm not aware of complete acquittal, but I think most are aware how judges apply their own discretion when determining sentences.

Arizona man, 86, sentenced to probation after mercy killing of his ailing wife | Fox News

PHOENIX – There was no doubt 86-year-old George Sanders killed his ailing wife. Yet everyone in the small Arizona courtroom — the prosecutor, the judge and even the couple's family members — agreed it was a time for compassion, not punishment.

This is all settled law.

So what is the real point here? Not finding people guilty when they have broken drug laws?

Kal'Stang · Mar 12, 2017

ocean515 said:
With respect, you are wrong.

Prove it.

Should juries be told about nullification in certain cases?

MaggieD

Sherman123

Kal'Stang

holbritter

holbritter

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong

Brewdog

Well-known member

ocean515

Sherman123

MaggieD

MaggieD

ocean515

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong

Kal'Stang

Kal'Stang

Brewdog

Well-known member

ocean515

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong

Kal'Stang

ocean515

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong

ocean515

Kal'Stang

ocean515

Kal'Stang