Jury nullification
Jury nullification is the process by which a jury has the authority to disregard a judge's instructions on the law or to overlook evidence presented during a trial. This concept suggests that juries can act as a check against the legal system, particularly in cases where they perceive the law as unjust or misapplied. It has gained attention in recent years, especially in trials dealing with drug offenses and controversial issues such as "mercy killings" or cases involving self-defense in domestic violence situations. Advocates argue that nullification allows juries to reflect the moral values of the community, while critics express concern that it could lead to arbitrary or lawless outcomes.
Historically, the Founding Fathers, including prominent figures like John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, supported the idea of jury nullification, believing in the discretionary power of juries to evaluate both law and facts independently. In practice, however, many judges are hesitant to inform juries of their nullification powers, fearing it might encourage disregard for legal principles. This ongoing debate highlights the complex relationship between justice, morality, and the rule of law within the American legal system. Understanding jury nullification invites deeper contemplation of how societal values intersect with judicial proceedings.
On this Page
Subject Terms
Jury nullification
SIGNIFICANCE: Jury nullification presupposes a jury’s inherent power to either disregard a judge’s instructions on the law, or, in addition, disregard some or all of the evidence presented in litigation. Although it is difficult to establish just how much jury nullification takes place, many experts on jury behavior believe it is on the rise in the twenty-first century, particularly in trials involving drug offenses.
It is argued that the jury, as the community’s conscience, must be allowed to operate as a brake on the misapplication of the law in particular circumstances. Criminal cases, in particular, offer a fertile field for the application of the nullification principle. For example, verdicts in so-called “mercy killing” trials, trials involving politically charged issues, and trials of battered women charged with spousal killing often exhibit jury nullification at work. Likewise, many Americans have taken the position that the O. J. Simpson acquittal by a predominantly African American jury in 1995 was a clear example of jury nullification premised on race.
There is an on-going debate in American criminal justice about whether or not jury nullification, if carried too far, will lead to a lawless society. On the other hand, if no discretion were allowed a jury to nullify what it believed to be an oppressive rule of law, the outcome might be technically legal but morally outrageous. All the nation’s Founding Fathers were in favor of the trial jury’s discretionary power to nullify. John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and Thomas Jefferson were robustly in favor of granting to the trial jury the power to determine both the law and the facts, unburdened by either a judge’s instructions or the rules of evidence.
In both theory and practice it is assumed that at the end of judicial proceedings the judge instructs the jury on the rules of law to be applied to the case at hand. Using these instructions, the jury applies the law to the facts they find during their deliberations. However, since no two cases are alike and since every case is infected, to a greater or lesser extent, with both legal and factual ambiguity, the jury is often left to view the law and the facts through its own peculiar prism. It is at this point that the cry of jury nullification is often heard by the losing side.
Most American trial and appellate judges are not in favor of instructing the jury on its power to disregard the law or the facts in a particular case. Judges arguably fear a total disregard for both legal principles and relevant facts if juries are simply left to their own devices. Thus, while a jury still holds a sort of veto power over the rigidity and inaptness of certain legal principles, trial judges and their appellate counterparts are generally content to remain silent on a jury’s power to nullify.
Bibliography
Abramson, Jeffery. We, the Jury: The Jury System and the Ideal of Democracy. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1994.
Conrad, Clay S. Jury Nullification: The Evolution of a Doctrine. Cato Institute, 2013.
Ferguson, Andrew G. Why Jury Duty Matters: A Citizen’s Guide to Constitutional Action. New York: NYU Press, 2012.
Freedman, Monroe H.1. “Jury Nullification: What It Is, and How to Do It Ethically.” Hofstra Law Review vol 42, no. 4, 2014, pp. 1125–1138, scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/hlr/vol42/iss4/4/. Accessed 8 July 2024.
Jonakait, Randolph N. The American Jury System. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2006.
"Jury Nullification." Cornell Law School, October 2022, www.law.cornell.edu/wex/jury‗nullification. Accessed 26 June 2024.