I’ve been reading a lot about jury nullification, and I get that jurors have the power to acquit someone even if the law technically says they’re guilty. But what I don’t get is—why is this something that exists, yet courts don’t allow it to be talked about during a trial?
If it’s a legitimate part of the legal system, why is it treated like a secret? Would a juror get in trouble for mentioning it during deliberations? And what would happen if someone brought it up during jury selection?
I’m just curious how this all works in practice. If jurors can ultimately do whatever they want, what stops them from using nullification all the time?
Jury Nullification arises from the constitution’s guarantee of the right to a jury trial. This guarantee creates one of a few constitutional obligations on the individual: The obligation to judge your peer, as a layperson.
The judge has a slightly different duty, due to “Separation of Powers”. The judge is charged with enforcing legislated law. The judge is not permitted to evaluate whether that law should or should not exist; the judge must presume that the law is valid unless it conflicts with a superior law, such as the constitution. This is why the judge must treat nullification as a secret: They violate the separation of powers as soon as they tell the jury they are free to ignore legislated law.
You, the juror, are not subject to the separation of powers. As a member of “We The People”, the Constitution derives its powers from you, not the other way around. Your duty, as a juror, is to provide the accused with their right to be judged by a jury of their peers.
Your obligation arises from the Constitution, and to the accused. Where legislated law conflicts with the Constitution, the Constitution supersedes the legislated law. Where you, as a layperson, believes that the legislated law does not adequately address the circumstances of the accused, you are not just “allowed” to find the accused not guilty; you are morally obligated to do so.
You will be asked if you hold any beliefs that would prevent you from rendering a judgement solely on the basis of the law, which would make you ineligible to serve on a jury. The constitution is law. My beliefs arise from the constitution, and I hold no beliefs that would prevent me from rendering a judgment on the basis of anything other than the law. I can honestly answer “No”.
We don’t actually know how often juries nullify. It is impossible to distinguish between an acquittal on the basis of “Reasonable Doubt” and an acquittal on the basis of “This law did not envision this defendant’s specific circumstances”.
Thanks for such a great explanation!
This is a much better answer than the current top post.
Say No, but provide that elaboration, and see what happens. You’re still lying, dude.
What do I need to elaborate? My beliefs are based entirely on the law. I hold no beliefs that would prevent me from making a decision on anything but the law.
I can make that statement under penalty of perjury. If you want to claim it is a lie, make your case. I am confident I can convince my own jury that I am speaking the truth.
You’re acting like you found some defensible loophole but your cageyness means you know it won’t work if the facts were laid out before jury selection.
The question isn’t about “the” law it means “any” law. The judge is asking you if you’re going to enforce the law for which they are under trial, not if you’re here to enforce the constitution. If that is what you wanted to do you would vote guilty and let them appeal to the Supreme Court because they are the constitution people, not you.
I addressed that fact in the very beginning. The judge is bound by the doctrine of separation of powers. The judge must assume that legislated law is valid unless it is demonstrated to conflict with superior law, such as the constitution. The judge cannot exercise any powers reserved to the legislature. Empaneling a juror they know to be willing to exercise a legislative power would violate the separation of powers doctrine. The judge can’t do that.
The judge also cannot prohibit a juror from deciding a case on the basis that the legislature failed to adequately consider the accused’s situation. Doing so is unconstitutional: it makes the juror an agent of the government, rather than a peer of the accused.
The jury is not the only entity empowered to ignore the legislature. “Pardons” are an important executive check on an out-of-touch legislature. The unlimited power to acquit is the same thing.
This “loophole” as you call it is perfectly defensible. As a juror, I will be compelled to make statements under penalty of perjury. How would you convict me for answering “No” to the question at hand?
Did you just make this part up because it sounds nice ?
It would seem so to those who don’t have a moral code. It makes perfect sense to those who do. Iykyk
Yeah it “makes sense” in a fairy tale kind of way but it’s obviously not based in reality.
Did you know that morality is not the same as legality? Some immoral things are legal and occasionally vice-versa.
Goodness gracious. Do you honestly think there is a thinking man woman or child alive who does not realise that legal does not mean moral and that legal outcomes are not always just?
That does not mean that Jurors can just make up the law based on the vibe of the case before them.
This may shock you, but puppies die sometimes. It’s sad.
You’re the one saying a moral argument is “unrealistic”.
Can you clarify what you’re actually saying?
If you’re trying to imply that a more moral person would see things your way, I couldn’t care less. It’s a pretty meaningless assertion.
You seem to be suggesting that moral considerations are not relevant to legal proceedings, yet simultaneously arguing that jurors should refuse to convict on moral grounds.
That’s simply not how laws are intended to be applied. Democratically elected representatives debate moral considerations when designing laws. If you want criminal law to include an exemption for murderers of CEOs that you don’t like, you should write to your local rep I guess.
In the mean time, jurors will just have to apply the law as it stands.
This is correct. There is no paradox here; no hypocrisy.
“We The People” empower the constitution. The Constitution empowers the government. The government has only the law; it does not have any sort of moral code. The government cannot consider moral principals in the application of law.
The juror is not a member of the government. The juror is a member of “We The People”; a peer of the accused.
Where the juror is convinced that the legislature did not appropriately consider the specific circumstance of the accused, the juror is constitutionally permitted to return a “just” verdict, consistent with their own morality.
While a judge can be legally obligated to issue a ruling inconsistent with his own moral code, a jury is NEVER obligated to return a verdict they believe to be unjust.
Absolutely not.
But you’re unable to support your claim.
I am able to support my claim, and I am doing so in our other conversation. The basis of my claim here relies on an understanding of the purpose and need for a layperson jury. My claim here arises naturally from that underlying point, which is better developed in our other thread.
“I’m right but I just can’t explain it because you don’t understand it”.
I wouldn’t say it that way, but I won’t say that is an inaccurate summarization.
Our other conversation is a far more productive avenue of approach.