Jury nullification is a complex legal concept that often sparks debate. In essence, it refers to a jury’s ability to acquit a defendant, even when they believe the defendant is guilty of the crime charged. This article delves into the intricacies of nullification, exploring its various forms and historical significance.
In its most literal sense, jury nullification arises “when a jury returns a Not Guilty verdict even though jurors believe beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant has broken the law.” The verdict of Not Guilty is final. Jurors cannot be penalized for their decision; the law is effectively nullified in that specific case.
A less absolute form of jury nullification occurs when a jury is unable to reach a unanimous verdict. In most jurisdictions, only one juror needs to disagree with the majority to “hang” the jury, resulting in a mistrial.
There is no requirement that jurors must reach a unanimous verdict. If a jury cannot unanimously agree on a Guilty or Not Guilty verdict, it’s called a hung jury. The judge will declare a mistrial when further deliberation is clearly unproductive. The prosecution can retry the case in the future, but the law has been nullified, at least for the trial in question.
Paul Butler, a former prosecutor and current Georgetown University Law Center professor, coined the term “jury nullification 2.0.” Butler used the term in the case of Touray Cornell, a Missoula, Montana man charged with possessing 1/16th of an ounce of marijuana in a county where a citizen initiative directed law enforcement to prioritize marijuana enforcement as their lowest priority. Of 27 potential jurors questioned during voir dire, only five stated they would convict someone for possessing such a small amount of marijuana. The judge, skeptical that seating a jury would even be possible, called a recess during which time the lawyers negotiated an “Alford plea” deal, in which the defendant did not admit guilt.
Repeated rejection of law enforcement can eventually render laws unenforceable. For example, rejection of the Fugitive Slave Laws and alcohol prohibition undermined the enforcement of these laws.
Eventually, it is not worth government officials’ time, hassle, or embarrassment to enforce these laws. They can be further nullified by remaining on the books without being enforced or repealed altogether.
When jurors in capital cases convict the accused and determine in the sentencing phase of the trial that the conditions for imposing the death penalty have been met, but instead sentence them to life without parole, this may also be considered jury nullification.
Alternatives to “jury nullification” include “conscientious acquittal,” “juror veto,” and “jury pardon”.
In conclusion, jury nullification is a controversial yet established aspect of the legal system. It highlights the jury’s role as a check on governmental power and a reflection of community values. Understanding this concept is crucial for anyone interested in law, justice, and civic responsibility.
