Jury Nullification

[Higgins]

Upon quick inspection, there appears to be no provision in the Federal or State (Ohio) Rules of Criminal Procedure for a Judge to set-aside a jury acquittal and enter a judgment of guilty. The Rules only appear to allow the judge to set-aside a guilty verdict, to wit:

FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
As amended to December 1, 2003
Rule 29. Motion for a Judgment of Acquittal
(a) Before Submission to the Jury. After the government closes its evidence or after the close of all the evidence, the court on the defendant's motion must enter a judgment of acquittal of any offense for which the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction. The court may on its own consider whether the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction. If the court denies a motion for a judgment of acquittal at the close of the government's evidence, the defendant may offer evidence without having reserved the right to do so.
(b) Reserving Decision. The court may reserve decision on the motion, proceed with the trial (where the motion is made before the close of all the evidence), submit the case to the jury, and decide the motion either before the jury returns a verdict or after it returns a verdict of guilty or is discharged without having returned a verdict. If the court reserves decision, it must decide the motion on the basis of the evidence at the time the ruling was reserved.
(c) After Jury Verdict or Discharge.
(1) Time for a Motion. A defendant may move for a judgment of acquittal, or renew such a motion, within 7 days after a guilty verdict or after the court discharges the jury, whichever is later, or within any other time the court sets during the 7-day period.
(2) Ruling on the Motion. If the jury has returned a guilty verdict, the court may set aside the verdict and enter an acquittal. If the jury has failed to return a verdict, the court may enter a judgment of acquittal.
(3) No Prior Motion Required. A defendant is not required to move for a judgment of acquittal before the court submits the case to the jury as a prerequisite for making such a motion after jury discharge.
(d) Conditional Ruling on a Motion for a New Trial.
(1) Motion for a New Trial. If the court enters a judgment of acquittal after a guilty verdict, the court must also conditionally determine whether any motion for a new trial should be granted if the judgment of acquittal is later vacated or reversed. The court must specify the reasons for that determination.
(2) Finality. The court's order conditionally granting a motion for a new trial does not affect the finality of the judgment of acquittal.
(3) Appeal.
(A) Grant of a Motion for a New Trial. If the court conditionally grants a motion for a new trial and an appellate court later reverses the judgment of acquittal, the trial court must proceed with the new trial unless the appellate court orders otherwise.
(B) Denial of a Motion for a New Trial. If the court conditionally denies a motion for a new trial, an appellee may assert that the denial was erroneous. If the appellate court later reverses the judgment of acquittal, the trial court must proceed as the appellate court directs.
(As amended Feb. 28, 1966, eff. July 1, 1966; Nov. 10, 1986, eff. Dec. 10, 1986; Apr. 29, 1994, eff. Dec. 1, 1994; Apr. 29, 2002, eff. Dec. 1, 2002.)

Rule 31. Jury Verdict
(a) Return. The jury must return its verdict to a judge in open court. The verdict must be unanimous.
(b) Partial Verdicts, Mistrial, and Retrial.
(1) Multiple Defendants. If there are multiple defendants, the jury may return a verdict at any time during its deliberations as to any defendant about whom it has agreed.
(2) Multiple Counts. If the jury cannot agree on all counts as to any defendant, the jury may return a verdict on those counts on which it has agreed.
(3) Mistrial and Retrial. If the jury cannot agree on a verdict on one or more counts, the court may declare a mistrial on those counts. The government may retry any defendant on any count on which the jury could not agree.

The state rules read similarly.

Note a jury's acquittal seems to be the last word. However, under 29(d)(1), if the judge enters an acquittal after the jury returns a guilty verdict, this may be appealed and overturned, requiring possibly a new trial.

 

[DCR]

Hate to burst the jury nullification bubble, but most states have language in their admissions acts (states admitted to the US after the original 13), in their state constitutions, or in state statutory law something like this:


The common law of England, so far as it is not repugnant to, or inconsistent with, the constitution or laws of the United States, in all cases not provided for in these compiled laws, is the rule of decision in all courts of this state.

Translation: Common law is recognized, but if there has been a law passed or an article included in a state constitution that contravenes common law, the new law governs.

Keep in mind, jury nullification advocates, that your philosophy could burn you badly. Take Texas' law allowing shooting trespassers at night, for example. A jury of mindless, gun grabbing sheeple who subscribed to the jury nullification principle could choose to "nullify" that law, which would undoubtedly be included among the jury instructions, and convict a legitimate shooter of first degree murder. In that case, the judge COULD enter a jnov and acquit the person, but could also let the verdict stand, under the mistaken belief that the jury just made findings of fact that the shooter did not fall within the law that allows shooting trespassers at night and as to whether the shooting was justified or murder. Although an appeals court would probably overturn it, if it found out the jury had employed jury nullification, that's hardly consolation for the defendant, now a convict, waiting in prison for his appeal to occur, his family destitute because he is no longer working, serving a sentence resulting FROM jury nullification.

Frankly, I like living in a nation of laws, where everyone knows the rules; anything else, jury nullification included, is anarchy.

 

[sumpnz]

DCR, I must respectfully disagree that jury nullification is tantamount to anarchy. While it could be used as an instrument of anarchy, it is much more likely to be used as a tool against oppression and tyranny. In the same way a gun can be a tool of freedom or oppression, depending on whose hand it is in. If we want our tools of freedom, we must also accept and attempt to mitigate their potential abuse as a tool of oppression (or anarchy - just as bad).

Yes, the circumstance you describe is possible, but in that case it would still only take one person to stand up to the rest of the jury to stop a good law from being overridden.

Note the case of Hale DeMar, the Wilmette, IL resident who shot a guy that was burgling his house for the second time in as many nights. Largly due to the pubilc outcry the state is refusing to prosecute, and even the town is taking a lot of flak for trying to impose a fine on him for violating their local gun ban. If somebody in Texas (or anywhere else for that matter) were charged with murder following a "good shoot" a similar hue and cry would result with probably similar effect. Even if they did procede to trial, the odds of conviction would be almost zero.

 

[Cosmoline]

Nullification comes into play in criminal cases, where the jury has the power to acquit in spite of the law and evidence. The most common examples are juries which conclude the prosecution should never have brought the case to begin with, even if technically the law was broken.

For a variety of reasons nullification doesn't apply to civil juries. Many of the posts on this thread are confusing civil claims with criminal prosecutions. They are very, very different.

It is impossible to undo the nullification power in criminal cases. It is inherent in the jury's power because of Constitutional restrictions. There never was a similar power for civil juries. Courts have JNOV and other powers they simply do not possess in any criminal case.