Jury Nullification

[bountyhunter]

This is not necessarily gun related per se, but I was curious about how all of you understand the concept of jury nullification. In particular, where is the justification for jury nullification, and the circumstances under which it can legitimately be used. I have just re-read the Constitution and all amendments and find no mention of it anywhere, including Article III.

Also, how can a jury's nullification of a law be challenged, and if it is successfully reversed later by the courts/Congress/etc, can the person(s) who's trial was the venue of the nullification be subject to re-trial.

Thanks for all input.

I.

Jury nullification is the loud whining noise the prosecutor makes when he thinks he made his case but the jury did not convict. In theory, a jury can ignore the law, the judge, and follow their own conscience in a decision... which pisses the state off no end and is why they screen jurors so carefully. That's exactly what happened in the OJ Simpson case.

Some states have built in guards against it: they allow the judge to order the jury to a "directed verdict" which basically means he tells them: "Go out and come back with a guuilty verdict."

In other states, judges are simply allowed to throw out a jury's verdict if they don't like it and substitute their own verdict.

 

[sumpnz]

Some states have built in guards against it: they allow the judge to order the jury to a "directed verdict" which basically means he tells them: "Go out and come back with a guuilty verdict."

So then what happens if the jury votes not guilty anyway? It seems to be the consensus here that the acquittal sticks, no matter how peed off the judge or prosecution gets. My understanding is the judge can only throw out the verdict, in a criminal trial at least, if the jury votes guilty and the judge wanted not guilty. Kind of like how the judge can reduce a death sentance to life without parole, but not vice versa. Civil trials, though, are apparently altogether different. The judges seem to have a lot more authority to overide a juries verdict in that venue.

 

[bountyhunter]

So then what happens if the jury votes not guilty anyway? It seems to be the consensus here that the acquittal sticks, no matter how peed off the judge or prosecution gets.

It should be like that, but it's my understanding there are states and state courts where the judge enters the ruling in a jury trial and if he thinks the guy is guilty, he can put that down regardless of what the jury said. In reality, that is also "jury nullification" because the judge nullifies the jury's verdict.

 

[sumpnz]

bountyhunter, do you know which states allow this to happen, and if it has been done, was the defense able to use the judge's "jury nullification" to get the defendant off on appeal?

If that was not cause for overturning, :banghead:

 

[Jim March]

Quoting Waitone:

So if I were to wear a tee shirt that says, "Ask me about jury nullification" chances are pretty good I'll be excused from the jury?

No. If you wear such a shirt, the odds aren't "pretty good" you won't see a jury, the odds are close to 100%.

And you'll probably be ordered to cover up the shirt ASAP. Judges don't believe in the 1st Amendment in a courthouse.

 

[El Tejon]

"Directed verdict"??? bounty, granted I'm not licensed in every state but I have never heard of such a practice. In a criminal case a judge can rule JNOV on an acquital??? Wow, never heard of that. Be interested to know which state(s) that would be? Why has that never been federalized? Thinking back to Con, Crim (I, II) and Crim Pro (I, II) were a while ago, but, even in the South with all those other rulings on trial procedure and rights, I cannot imagine that jnov on an acquital barring an exception to double jeopardy.

Directed verdict for me means very good things! It means the prosecution failed to present enough evidence to give it to a jury. Happens now and then--not as much as I want it to happen.

sum, I guess I'm a little confused about your original question(s) from the natural thread drift we've undergone here. Could you re-state it please?

 

[M1911Owner]

Some states have built in guards against it: they allow the judge to order the jury to a "directed verdict" which basically means he tells them: "Go out and come back with a guuilty verdict."

No, they can't. The Supreme Court has ruled that directing a guilty verdict is always a reversable error. A court can direct a verdict of "not guilty," but not the other way around. (For example, Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 199 n.50 (1976) (plurality opinion))

Also, a court can overrule a "guilty" verdict, but not a "not guilty" verdict.

 

[ksnecktieman]

ok, Can someone comment on this? John applies for a ccw in a "may issue" state. The regulating party (sherrif?) turns him down (for not showing need, maybe?). Shortly there after he is involved in a just defensive shooting, while carrying illegally. If I understand the tangled web correctly, since he is carrying illegally, the shooting is considered criminal? Am I right so far?

If I am on the jury, I can declare him innocent because he tried to carry legally and was unjustly refused? He obviously had a need. And the shooting was justifiable self defense. Even with his gun in evidence and his lack of a permit proven?

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

I was in a jury pool for a drug case in Yolo County about a month ago. The judge specifically used the term "jury nullification" when he asked the pool if we could judge on the case in accordance with the law.

To make a long story short, I was dismissed...

 

[BowStreetRunner]

in reply to geekw/a45 from waaaay back....
.......I hadn't heard about a jnov in a criminal case until today actually........im not sure the judge used the technical jnov procedure, but he threw out a conviction after the jury returned a guilty verdict..........
this was the case in Alabama in the depression where 9 young black men were accused of raping two white women (one of whom later recanted her story and spent her time trying to free the wrongfully accused men)
anyways, it took trial after trial and appeal after appeal to free these men, despite clear evidence that they were not guilty.........the judge after i think the 2nd trial (there were prob'ly 4 or 5 trials total) threw out the jury's guilty verdict, lost his job next election, and was ruined as a lawyer because he let some black men go free (and they didnt really go free, they got tried, again and again)
a judge can't jnov into a guilty verdict (as far as i know), and in this case i dont even know if it was a jnov or just a mistrial
i gotta go ask a prof about this......
BSR

 

[M1911Owner]

ksnooseman: First, I need to note that I'm not an attorney, and just going by what I've read in various sources.

What happened with the guy in Wilmette, IL, is that the good shoot was a good shoot--the fact that his gun was illegal had no bearing on that. But, they were threatening to bring him up on charges for his expired FOID and violating Wilmette's gun ban. (Last I heard, the county was backing off on the expired FOID because of the public hue and cry about the situation.)

In the Bernard Goetz case, as I recall, again, the good shoot was a good shoot, but they brought him up on weapons possession charges.

If you were on the jury in either of those cases, you could nullify for any reason you dang well want to--the courts basically can't review a not guilty verdict. However, I, and pretty much all the commentators, contend that you have a moral obligation to "do the right thing," according to your conscience. In your hypothetical, you certainly could nullify based on the Second Amendment, because he has a non-infrigible right to keep and bear arms. I doubt, however, that you could act based on the concept that he should have been issued a carry permit--I would be very suprised if the judge let that the information that he'd applied for a permit and been refused get in front of the jury.

 

[M1911Owner]

One common trick is that during the jury's selection process, questions WILL be asked to the effect of "do you promise to follow the court's instructions, and the law?".

Given that jury nullification is the law, I believe that one can truthfully answer that question, "Yes," and still nullify bad law.

 

[Jim March]

ksnecktieman:

That's about it.

Except that "John" has an option: prove that his lack of CCW was due to discrimination, racism, corruption or illegal "due process violations" of one sort or another on the part of the issuing (or rather, non-issuing) agency.

If he can do that, the jury might have an "out": constitutional violations trump legal violations.

 

[Bill Hook]

the case in Alabama

Scottsboro.

 

[seeker_two]

I've always wondered (esp. after the Branch Davidian trial where the "not guilty" jury decision was reversed by that judge Walker Smith)...

If you serve in a jury that finds a defendant "not guilty"--but the judge reverses the finding to "guilty"--can you offer your services to the defense counsel (i.e. amicus brief, affidavit, etc.) to show why the jury found the defendant "not guilty" when the case is appealed?

Anyone know if this is possible?....

 

[publius]

Excerpts on why a jury is considered important in deciding fact and law.

"If the jury feels the law is unjust," according to the Fourth Circuit in the 1969 case U.S. v. Moylan, "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 … the jury has the power to acquit …"

"I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution," said Thomas Jefferson in a 1789 letter to Thomas Paine.

John Adams, the second American president, sang from the same hymnal. "It is not only [the juror's] right, but his duty," he said in 1771, "to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court."

Likewise, in an 1804 libel case, Alexander Hamilton argued that "the jury have an undoubted right to give a general verdict, which decides both law and fact."


"This distribution of power, by which the court and jury mutually assist, and mutually check each other," Hamilton continued, "seems to be the safest, and consequently the wisest arrangement, in respect to the trial of crimes. ... To judge accurately of motives and intentions, does not require a master's skill in the science of law. It depends more on a knowledge of the passions, and of the springs of human action, and may be the lot of ordinary experience and sagacity."

More here.

 

[Sean Smith]

Given that jury nullification is the law, I believe that one can truthfully answer that question, "Yes," and still nullify bad law.

Bingo.

The thing is, "jury nullification" isn't some special naughty thing in and of itself. It is inherent in the existence of a jury that can't be told in advance that it must find somebody guilty. If the jury can't be told how to vote, it can vote however it pleases. If no jury finds anybody guilty of a crime under a particular law, that law has no force.

You don't nullify law by standing up as angels sing and play trumpets and proclaim "We deem this law naughty and jury nullify it!" I mean, grow up. You get on the jury, say you will be a good boy, and then vote your conscience. When they ask, you just say you don't think the state met its burden of proof.

If you get a chance to get on a jury trial concerning a RKBA case and tell everyone about "jury nullification," you are an imbecille. You just get on the jury and DO IT.

A funny example is here in Dallas. The city of Dallas gives stores permits to sell adult materials. But there are laws against indecency, so the DPD periodically arrests the clerks at these stores for selling indecent material. At some point, the clerks started to plead "not guilty" and demand their jury trial.

Nobody has been found guilty. NO jury has convicted any of these poor clerks for selling indecent material, when of course according to the law they are. The law and its application is so stunningly stupid that nobody will convict under it. So it has no force and is a complete joke, and you can buy all the porn you want in Dallas. And then some: this place has more high-profile dirty stuff stores than any "degenerate," "un-Christian," Yankee city I've ever seen.

 

[Poodleshooter]

The language that the judge gave us in my most recent juror experience was that HE was to judge LAW and we were to judge FACTS of the case. We judged law anyway: over 3/4 of the pool was unwilling to convict someone for possession with intent to distribute both marijuana and cocaine. The commonwealth's attorney asked for a show of hands as to how many people felt that they could NOT deliver a guilty verdit against the accused. Most of the hands rose. Since they'd already used up most of the pool in prior cases, that was it for that trial.
The judge seemed almost amused by the proceedings. I can see where lawyers might feel somewhat threatened by the concept of citizens trumping their knowledge of law. The commonwealth's attorney was displeased to say the least. All of that careful preperation for naught.

 

[BowStreetRunner]

Hook,
you are right, i had forgotten the name of the place, thanks!
BSR

 

[MacViolinist]

seeker_two,
The problem in the Davidian trial wasn't exactly the same as a judge simply overturning a not guilty verdict. The problem was that in the 67 pages of jury instructions (which are not all that clear) the judge linked the crimes together so that the jury could not convict on the weapons charges without convicting on the counts of manslaughter, murder, and conspiracy. Can any of the lawyers here tell me how common that is?


-drew

 

[HankB]

The commonwealth's attorney asked for a show of hands as to how many people felt that they could NOT deliver a guilty verdit against the accused. Most of the hands rose.

This may have less to do with jury nullification on philosophical grounds than it does with most of the jury pool seeing a way to get out of serving on this case.

 

[sumpnz]

El Tejon, my original question was

where is the justification for jury nullification, and the circumstances under which it can legitimately be used ... how can a jury's nullification of a law be challenged

I think the consesus here is that the justification for jury nullification comes from common law tradition, and some aspects of the Constitution, while not explecitly protecting it, can be used to back up the legitimacy of jury nullification.

As to the circumstances, it seems to be pretty well agreed that any time a juror's conscience dictates a vote for not-guilty in spite of clear evidence that the accused violated a particular law, then jury nullification is justified, whether that is becuase they believe the law is unfair/unjust/immoral/unconstitutional/etc.

It also seems to be the consensus that a jury's nullification cannot be challanged. A juror attempting to excersize that right might be removed from a jury prior to a verdict being reached, but once a not-guilty verdict is handed down, it cannot be overturned later by any court.

 

[TallPine]

This may have less to do with jury nullification on philosophical grounds than it does with most of the jury pool seeing a way to get out of serving on this case.

As Dave Barry says, the US Constitution guarantees you the right to a trial by a jury of people who are too stupid to get out of jury duty.

 

[bountyhunter]

"Directed verdict"??? bounty, granted I'm not licensed in every state but I have never heard of such a practice. In a criminal case a judge can rule JNOV on an acquital??? Wow, never heard of that. Be interested to know which state(s) that would be?

It's been quite a few years since I was in school. It's my dim recollection that New York allowed judges to render a "directed verdict" to the jury and also to throw out a jury's verdict if it appeared to be wrong. It's a state court thing, not federal. maybe some lawyers on the board can speak up if they are up on the current laws. It may have been abolished, but I doubt it.

It's not necessarily as evil as it sounds: it was intended to allow the judge the lattitude of correcting the outcome of a trial where the jury was too stupid to understand the facts of the law or had been emotionally swayed to a wrong decision (re: OJ trial). In reality, judges have the power to render verdicts solely on their opinion in Judge trials where no jury is present. It just extends the power they already have to the jury trial as well.

 

[BigG]

It seems to me that the concept is mostly a theory that would take a widespread conspiracy to implement. In other words, on something as repugnant as Prohibition it may have been that every person selected for a jury lied and said they were not aware of the Volstead Act and then voted to acquit on any case they happened to be called on. However, juries do not decide what case they sit on. They could be on a domestic violence case, a murder case, a manslaughter case, a robbery case, a drug case, etc. etc. IOW, pretty much a vain hope. YMMV