What Is It? When Is It Permissible? What Arguments Can Be Made for and Against the Practice?
In the American legal system, when determining the outcome of a criminal matter, a jury is commonly directed to return a guilty verdict if the prosecution proves its case “beyond a reasonable doubt.” There are situations, however, when a jury may conclude that the defendant violated the law but instead render a “not guilty” verdict. Because such a verdict is final, the defendant may not be subsequently re-prosecuted for the same offense. When a jury acquits a defendant in such a manner, it’s referred to as “jury nullification.”
The concept of jury nullification can also apply in a civil lawsuit when a jury finds a party not liable despite the evidence presented. Jury nullification in a civil suit can have a different outcome than in a criminal trial. In a criminal trial, the judge has no right to overturn the jury’s verdict. In the aftermath of a civil jury nullification, however, a judge may enter a judgment finding liability “notwithstanding the verdict” or even mandate a new trial.
How Is Jury Nullification Permissible?
Absent evidence of jury tampering, a jury has an absolute right to return any verdict it chooses, provided the rules have been followed for determining that verdict. It’s important to understand, though, that most juries are generally not informed of the right of nullification. Juries typically learn about the possibility of nullification through sources outside the courtroom, including personal research, media reporting, and legal television dramas.
Why Would a Jury Exercise the Right of Nullification?
Among the reasons a jury might find to nullify a verdict are:
- The jury may believe that the law is unfair, unjust, or out of date. For example, jury nullification was frequently used to prevent the conviction of persons charged with violating the Fugitive Slave Act.
- Despite evidence that the defendant committed a crime, the jurors may believe that the prosecutor misstated, improperly applied, or misrepresented the law.
- The jurors may believe that the mandatory sentence for conviction doesn’t fit the crime.
Of course, a jury can also use the principle of jury nullification to make a statement about the criminal justice system or to express their sympathies or prejudices regarding the accused. Because nullification involves a jury verdict, it applies only to the case in which it is rendered and has no bearing on other similar legal controversies. However, when juries begin to consistently nullify the same types of charges based on the same law, that law may become ineffective or meaningless.
What Are the Arguments for Jury Nullification?
Proponents of jury nullification typically make these arguments to support the practice:
- It serves as a defense against unjust or morally questionable laws. Nullification can send a powerful message that certain laws are not supported by the community and should be changed.
- It allows jurors to place a premium on the beliefs and values of the community, rather than on the law.
- It helps protect against unfair or overzealous prosecution, often of persons who are economically, educationally, or otherwise disadvantaged.
- It compels jurors to take their role seriously.
What Are the Criticisms of Jury Nullification?
Those who oppose jury nullification say that it:
- Renders the rule of law essentially meaningless, allowing individual juries and jurors to make their own laws
- Creates significant potential for abuse and bias, as juries make decisions on personal factors, rather than on issues of law
- Potentially leads to chaos and inconsistency in the administration and enforcement of the law