Jury Nullification

So just what the heck is jury nullification? Sounds like we're dismissing the verdict delivered by the jury, but that's about the opposite.

Nullification is when a jury refuses to follow the court's instructions and deliver a verdict according to the law, no matter what the evidence presented. Instead, the jury rules based on something else - like its own common sense. The idea is that the jury is nullifying the law, essentially saying it's a bad law they refuse to uphold.

The general concept is that the people of a local area serve as a final check on the laws passed by Congress, the regulations enforced by agencies of the Administrative branch and instructions from the judiciary. By being allowed to decide on the validity of the law, its application or just plain common sense, the jury delivers a more just verdict.

Photo Credit: hans s on flicker. CC BY-ND 2.0 license

way of voting on the laws and regulations that overstep their bounds
takes advantage of all the brain power in the room
allows the jury to serve its true function.

One only has to consider real cases from the Jim Crow South to see a big, huge glaring problem with nullification. Juries frequently would let white people off for killing blacks and overturn laws that sought to create equality. These were the days when only while men served on juries, but it's easy to see where any particular group's strongly held ideas and beliefs could lead to nullification for questionable reasons.

Add to that one a possibly stickier issue. If the jury votes on the principle of the law and determines it to be invalid, they are setting the defendant free. A defendant who can never be tried on that same charge again. Now, if you truly believe the law is wrong, ridiculous, overstepping, then there shouldn't have been anything for the defendant to have violated. But, I can see times when voting over the principle of the law might cause a problem. Especially in the case of the first objection - voting to free someone who committed murder because you think he should have had the right to kill that "inferior" person.

The other big problem I have with the concept is that we are talking about people here. And people aren't always rational about their choices. They react emotionally, ignore facts and make decisions based on whims. They often hold contradictory beliefs because they never stop to think about them. And we're going to let them decide to change the law? Yikes.

There are two big points of debate around just how nullification is applied, mostly to do with the actions of the judge.

First, whether juries can or should be instructed or informed of their power to nullify. More typically, the jury is told they have to rule on the law as stated. And frequently, the judge tells them what that ruling should be. Most people think that's all there is to their role on a jury, so there are those who think it should be part of the judge's instructions so people understand all their powers as jury members.

Second, whether a judge may remove jurors "for cause" when they refuse to apply the law as instructed. This is a prickly issue because there's the ego of the judge on the one side and the right of the jury member to vote as they see fit. Given that nullification is a natural right, there are those who don't believe it should count as cause for removal. But if there's just one person holding out for nullification, it causes havoc with the judge's courtroom.