What is Jury Nullification? 

Jury nullification is a legal concept wherein jurors acquit a defendant despite evidence of guilt because they believe the law itself is unjust, unconstitutional, or improperly applied. Jury nullification has a long and  history in the United States and abroad. It is a powerful tool, maintained by the framers to allow regular people to be a check on government prosecution forces that overstep the mandate to pursue justice.

Historical Background

Jury nullification traces its roots to English common law. One of the earliest and most notable examples occurred in 1670 in the trial of William Penn and William Mead. They were charged with unlawful assembly for practicing Quakerism, a nonconformist religion. The jury, led by Edward Bushell, refused to convict despite clear evidence of guilt. The court imprisoned the jurors for contempt, but the English Court of Common Pleas ruled that jurors could not be punished for their verdicts. This case established the principle of jury independence.

In the American colonies, jury nullification became a tool for resisting British authority. Colonial juries often acquitted defendants accused of violating unpopular laws, such as the Stamp Act or customs regulations. These actions contributed to the colonies' push for independence and established jury nullification as a foundational principle of American jurisprudence.

Jury Nullification in U.S. History

After the United States gained independence, jury nullification remained an important, albeit controversial, aspect of the legal system. During the early 19th century, jurors often nullified cases involving the Fugitive Slave Act, which required the return of escaped slaves to their owners. Northern juries frequently refused to convict abolitionists or others who defied the law, reflecting moral opposition to slavery.

Similarly, during the Prohibition era in the 1920s, jury nullification became widespread as Americans resisted the enforcement of alcohol bans. Jurors often refused to convict individuals for violating Prohibition laws, undermining the legal system's ability to enforce the policy and contributing to its eventual repeal.

Modern Legal Context

In modern times, jury nullification is more contentious. Courts generally discourage jurors from nullifying laws, emphasizing their duty to apply the law as instructed. Judges typically do not inform juries of their power to nullify, and in some cases, jurors who openly express intent to nullify have been dismissed.This should not be a surprise to anyone who views the use of power with a critical eye. 

Jury Nullification and the Modern Supreme Court 

The SCOTUS has acknowledged the primacy of juries in our justice system. Justice Antonin Scalia, a prominent "conservative" justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, commented on jury nullification during his tenure, and recognized the historical legitimacy of the practice of juries following their conscience over the law. 

Scalia wrote: 

“[The jury] right is no mere procedural formality, but a fundamental reservation of power in our constitutional structure. Just as suffrage ensures the people's ultimate control in the legislative and executive branches, jury trial is meant to ensure their control in the judiciary.” He also wrote in Blakely v. Washington (an important case regarding the right to a jury finding of guilt regarding certain facts that would enhance a criminal defendant's sentence) that “the very reason the Framers put a jury-trial guarantee in the Constitution is that they were unwilling to trust government to mark out the role of the jury.”

In another Sixth Amendment case, Justice David Souter, writing for the majority in Jones v. United States (1999), concluded that the Framers (of the Constitution) felt juries had an important role as a check on the government and judiciary and that the Framers did not want this power to be eroded. Thus, the right of juries has been acknowledged as an important component of the Framers' desire to resist government overreach. Employed by colonists to resist what they saw as Parliament's tyrannical legislation, jury nullification is no different within contemporary American democracy.

Notable Cases and Controversies

Jury nullification has appeared in numerous high-profile cases throughout U.S. history. For example, in the 1990s, it became a focal point in debates about drug policy. Jurors in some cases refused to convict defendants facing harsh mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent drug offenses, reflecting growing public dissatisfaction with the "War on Drugs."

One prominent example is the trial of Laura Kriho in Colorado in 1996. Kriho was accused of juror misconduct after expressing her belief in jury nullification during deliberations. The case highlighted the tension between the jury's traditional independence and the modern judiciary's efforts to ensure adherence to the law.

More recently, advocacy groups such as the Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA) have sought to educate the public about jury nullification. They argue that jurors should be informed of their right to acquit based on conscience, particularly in cases involving controversial or unjust laws.

Ethical and Legal Implications

Jury nullification raises important questions about the relationship between law and morality. Should jurors strictly follow the law, even if they believe it is immoral? Or should they act according to their conscience, even if it means defying legal instructions?

From a legal perspective, nullification poses challenges to the predictability and uniformity of the justice system. It introduces an element of subjectivity into verdicts, potentially leading to uneven outcomes. On the other hand, proponents argue that nullification allows juries to act as a check against unjust laws, providing a democratic counterbalance to legislative and judicial authority.

Conclusion

Jury nullification is an important check on government overreach. Jury that has shaped the course of legal history in the United States and beyond, used to resist oppression and promote justice. Justice Antonin It is a crucial tool in preserving the jury's role as a safeguard against injustice. 

|

|

|

*Supreme Court quotes (and analyis) from this great article on the subject of jury nullification in the Princeton Legal Journal. Other portions of this article may be completely fabricated by AI but the issue of jury nullification feels timely right now.