4 ms·

I’ve heard so many conflicting conclusions on jury nullification, with mini saying it’s illegal. Is that true? Is it illegal for a juror to stand up and say we

I’ve heard so many conflicting conclusions on jury nullification, with mini saying it’s illegal. Is that true? Is it illegal for a juror to stand up and say we should vote not guilty because the law is wrong, or the cause is just?

aix1 5y ago
> Is it illegal for a juror... I imagine this can vary significantly by jurisdiction, no? (Your question doesn't mention one.)
- underseacables 5y ago
  For simplicity sake, let’s use federal court.
  - nickcox 5y ago
    I imagine it would still depend on the jurisdiction?
    - Armisael16 5y ago
      It doesn’t and can’t as long as the jurors don’t have to explain their decision.
  - joefife 5y ago
    Why? The article posted is about the law in England and Wales.
amanaplanacanal 5y ago
My understanding of the US is that the jury pretty much has final say. If the jury returns “not guilty”, that’s the end of it.
- tzs 5y ago
  Generally correct in criminal cases, due to the law against double jeopardy. There is an exception, though. Double jeopardy does not apply if you weren't actually in jeopardy at the first trial. If, for instance, you bribed the jury or used threats against a juror or their family to get them to vote not guilty, then that trial may not count as having placed you in jeopardy. The State could try you again for the same crime (and also try you for crimes associated with your tampering with the jury at the first trial). Note that although a jury does not have the final say in the other direction because the judge can choose to overrule a jury's "guilty" verdict or the defendant can appeal to a higher court, in practice they effectively do in many cases because jurors do not have to explain why they reached their verdict. Say Bob is charged with theft. Bob offers witnesses who saw Bob at a place nowhere near the crime scene at around the same time as the crime. The prosecution offers witnesses that saw Bob at the crime scene and attacks the credibility of Bob's witnesses. Bob offers evidence that the prosecution witnesses are not reliable. It is going to come down to which individual witnesses are believable and which are not, which is a rather subjecting thing for the jurors (and for the judge and any judges in future appeals). If the jury feels that Bob is not guilty of this particular crime but feels that Bob has probably committed other crimes and will continue to do so and decides to return a guilty verdict, the judge doesn't have a way to distinguish that from a guilty verdict because the jury evaluated the reliability of all the witnesses and concluded that the prosecution ones were telling the truth.
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> with mini saying it’s illegal In the U.S., it is illegal to advocate for it while on a jury. It’s also standard for potential jurors to be asked about it in an indirect way. As long as we have juries, nullification will exist. It’s a bad mechanism for the rule of law, however. And if a judge suspects nullification is afoot, they will generally call a mistrial.
- staticautomatic 5y ago
  I don’t believe this is the case. Please offer a citation. An attorney can’t argue for it but a juror surely must be able to or else it would never happen. Source: I’m a jury consultant and law student.
coyotespike 5y ago
No, passing a law against jurors advocating for jury nullification would probably be unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds. In addition, there are incredibly strong norms against penalizing jurors, except for clear misconduct such as taking bribes, or conducting outside research. Founder of Pennsylvania William Penn's trial sticks in my mind here for some reason. As a result, in the US, it does not vary by jurisdiction. What does vary is how clearly each jurisdiction supports jury nullification. Some have considered requiring the judge to inform the jury of their right to nullify, others not so much. Anyway, advocate away, you are perfectly safe, and if you weren't you would have multiple highly motivated legal organizations (like the ACLU, but also others) on your side.
- DangitBobby 5y ago
  Why is it against the law to conduct outside research?
  - detaro 5y ago
    Because the result of the case is not supposed to be influenced by information (especially not information specific to the case) that has not been presented in court and the parties didn't have opportunity to address/challenge.
  - _carbyau_ 5y ago
    Court is meant to be an authoritative process. The prosecution and defence are meant to present "the relevant facts". Outside that, too many jurors might be influenced by what a Kardashian thinks...

aix1 5y ago

> Is it illegal for a juror... I imagine this can vary significantly by jurisdiction, no? (Your question doesn't mention one.)

underseacables 5y ago
For simplicity sake, let’s use federal court.
- nickcox 5y ago
  I imagine it would still depend on the jurisdiction?
  - Armisael16 5y ago
    It doesn’t and can’t as long as the jurors don’t have to explain their decision.
- joefife 5y ago
  Why? The article posted is about the law in England and Wales.

amanaplanacanal 5y ago

My understanding of the US is that the jury pretty much has final say. If the jury returns “not guilty”, that’s the end of it.

tzs 5y ago
Generally correct in criminal cases, due to the law against double jeopardy. There is an exception, though. Double jeopardy does not apply if you weren't actually in jeopardy at the first trial. If, for instance, you bribed the jury or used threats against a juror or their family to get them to vote not guilty, then that trial may not count as having placed you in jeopardy. The State could try you again for the same crime (and also try you for crimes associated with your tampering with the jury at the first trial). Note that although a jury does not have the final say in the other direction because the judge can choose to overrule a jury's "guilty" verdict or the defendant can appeal to a higher court, in practice they effectively do in many cases because jurors do not have to explain why they reached their verdict. Say Bob is charged with theft. Bob offers witnesses who saw Bob at a place nowhere near the crime scene at around the same time as the crime. The prosecution offers witnesses that saw Bob at the crime scene and attacks the credibility of Bob's witnesses. Bob offers evidence that the prosecution witnesses are not reliable. It is going to come down to which individual witnesses are believable and which are not, which is a rather subjecting thing for the jurors (and for the judge and any judges in future appeals). If the jury feels that Bob is not guilty of this particular crime but feels that Bob has probably committed other crimes and will continue to do so and decides to return a guilty verdict, the judge doesn't have a way to distinguish that from a guilty verdict because the jury evaluated the reliability of all the witnesses and concluded that the prosecution ones were telling the truth.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

> with mini saying it’s illegal In the U.S., it is illegal to advocate for it while on a jury. It’s also standard for potential jurors to be asked about it in an indirect way. As long as we have juries, nullification will exist. It’s a bad mechanism for the rule of law, however. And if a judge suspects nullification is afoot, they will generally call a mistrial.

staticautomatic 5y ago
I don’t believe this is the case. Please offer a citation. An attorney can’t argue for it but a juror surely must be able to or else it would never happen. Source: I’m a jury consultant and law student.

coyotespike 5y ago

No, passing a law against jurors advocating for jury nullification would probably be unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds. In addition, there are incredibly strong norms against penalizing jurors, except for clear misconduct such as taking bribes, or conducting outside research. Founder of Pennsylvania William Penn's trial sticks in my mind here for some reason. As a result, in the US, it does not vary by jurisdiction. What does vary is how clearly each jurisdiction supports jury nullification. Some have considered requiring the judge to inform the jury of their right to nullify, others not so much. Anyway, advocate away, you are perfectly safe, and if you weren't you would have multiple highly motivated legal organizations (like the ACLU, but also others) on your side.

DangitBobby 5y ago
Why is it against the law to conduct outside research?
- detaro 5y ago
  Because the result of the case is not supposed to be influenced by information (especially not information specific to the case) that has not been presented in court and the parties didn't have opportunity to address/challenge.
- _carbyau_ 5y ago
  Court is meant to be an authoritative process. The prosecution and defence are meant to present "the relevant facts". Outside that, too many jurors might be influenced by what a Kardashian thinks...