A few years ago, my son was summoned for jury duty. He looked like he was about twelve, though in reality he was probably about twenty. The judge asked each of the potential jurors if they would agreed to follow the law as interpreted by the judge. When it came my son's time to answer, he replied that he would have to see the law for himself and proceeded to explain jury nullification to the judge and the other prospective jurors. Needless to say, the judge was not pleased. My son was dismissed, and shortly thereafter all the other jurors walked out and up to my son to thank him for getting them off... and for teaching them about jury nullification. :)
The basic summary is that the jury cannot be questioned about the reasons why they reached the verdict they did, or punished for the "wrong" verdict, and therefore jurors are, in practical terms, entirely free to acquit someone even if the law says they are guilty, for example if the jurors think the law is unfair or "the victim deserved it" or whatever.
Legally speaking, it is up to the judge to interpret what the legal standard is, and the jury is only supposed to judge the facts to decide whether or not they fit the legal standard, but there is no legal way to punish a jury that ignores this and does what they want. (The verdict could end up overturned if one of the parties makes a successful argument that "no reasonable jury could have reached that verdict", but the jurors themselves can't be punished, unless they admit to something illegal, so bragging about how "of course he did it but we acquitted him because we all hated the guy he murdered" is still a really bad idea.)
(And admitting that you know about this and are willing to do it is a reason to get dismissed from jury duty, because you're saying you might not convict or acquit according to the letter of the law.)
I don’t like “it is up to the judge to interpret the law”. To me, that means different judges could rule differently on a case, regardless what the law says.
Yes, that's a very real problem. In theory they have to interpret it according to precedent, but sometimes there is no precedent, or they decide that it's "not the same" for some reason...
But *somebody* has to decide what the law means, if the law is going to exist at all.
I wonder what would happen if a potential juror was asked ANY question and he/she replied "JURY NULLIFICATION".
Would the room be cleared, like in Trilby's story above?
A few years ago, my son was summoned for jury duty. He looked like he was about twelve, though in reality he was probably about twenty. The judge asked each of the potential jurors if they would agreed to follow the law as interpreted by the judge. When it came my son's time to answer, he replied that he would have to see the law for himself and proceeded to explain jury nullification to the judge and the other prospective jurors. Needless to say, the judge was not pleased. My son was dismissed, and shortly thereafter all the other jurors walked out and up to my son to thank him for getting them off... and for teaching them about jury nullification. :)
Hats off to your son.
I guess I need an education on jury nullification! First I’ve heard of it.
The basic summary is that the jury cannot be questioned about the reasons why they reached the verdict they did, or punished for the "wrong" verdict, and therefore jurors are, in practical terms, entirely free to acquit someone even if the law says they are guilty, for example if the jurors think the law is unfair or "the victim deserved it" or whatever.
Legally speaking, it is up to the judge to interpret what the legal standard is, and the jury is only supposed to judge the facts to decide whether or not they fit the legal standard, but there is no legal way to punish a jury that ignores this and does what they want. (The verdict could end up overturned if one of the parties makes a successful argument that "no reasonable jury could have reached that verdict", but the jurors themselves can't be punished, unless they admit to something illegal, so bragging about how "of course he did it but we acquitted him because we all hated the guy he murdered" is still a really bad idea.)
(And admitting that you know about this and are willing to do it is a reason to get dismissed from jury duty, because you're saying you might not convict or acquit according to the letter of the law.)
I don’t like “it is up to the judge to interpret the law”. To me, that means different judges could rule differently on a case, regardless what the law says.
Yes, that's a very real problem. In theory they have to interpret it according to precedent, but sometimes there is no precedent, or they decide that it's "not the same" for some reason...
But *somebody* has to decide what the law means, if the law is going to exist at all.
That "crazy" James Madison's writings must be purged along with his other composition ........ The Constitution
You have to be careful with jury nullification. In some states it’s illegal to research it.
OMG! Of course it is!