Essay On Jury Nullification

This amendment was introduced after the Bruce Burrell case (2005) where, after two weeks of deliberations, all jurors were firmly in favor of one verdict except for one who was firmly against the majority verdict. The case illustrated the vulnerabilities of the previous jury system in creating a time and cost ineffective measure of trialing defendants where justice was not necessarily achieved. Another recent reform is the passing of legislation in 2006 which provided three additional ‘spare’ jurors to be empanelled on lengthy criminal trials for example in the case R v. Wood. These recent reforms in legislation have led to the jury system being more cost and time effective in the criminal trial. Allowing a majority vote instead of strict unanimous verdict reduces the risk of a hung jury and hence prevents jury bribing and jury disagreements. By avoiding a retrial, the criminal trial process saves huge amounts of time and money for all individuals involved and hence maintains the integrity of the jury system. Equally, allowing spare jurors in lengthy trials is hugely cost and time effective as retrials are often avoided in the case where there is misconduct amongst the jurors.

The uncertain discrimination persists in the legal system with no intention of remedying it. Not only are black citizens being discriminated outside a court room, but also inside where an offense has not been committed. The selection of jurors must be based on a selection of rules. However, it comes from years back, in 1987, black jurors were systematically dismissed. Reasons given as for the motive of their eliminations are not based upon the Batson v Kentucky case. Not making eye contact, being a social worker, divorced, female and/or being well educated are among the reasons brought up at the time of jury selection. It is critically coming out of control how discriminatory the system has become and the fact that the appellant courts continue

Jury Nullification- Is when a jury reaches a verdict that is opposing to that of all the evidence presented.

Today we are here to speak upon todays Jury system and how it can be improved or should we have it removed. Well I'm here to tell you my side. I think jury duty at this point should be eliminated and done for because its has more convicted, its random people you can say with no experience on handling a situation like this with a “criminal” they don't know how to assess the situation at hand like if you were to go with the bench, and also some of the jurors don't even pay attention to the case they are there because they have to. In the jury system there has been more cases than in the bench for the year 2010.

Race is one of the most controversial topics when speaking of bias, and still to this day race is occasionally believed to sway the judicial system’s decisions. A recent statistic proved that less than 5 years ago in North Carolina more than 52% of potential black jurors were cut, or peremptory challenged, meaning they removed from a case without reason (S.M.). Not only do jurors experience discrimination but suspects on trial have also suffered for decades. Evidence shows judges sentence black convicts to 20%

“The harm from discriminatory jury selection extends beyond that inflicted on the defendant and the excluded juror to touch the entire community. Selection procedures that purposefully exclude black persons from juries undermine public confidence in the fairness of our system of justice. Discrimination within the judicial system is most pernicious because it is ‘a stimulant to the race prejudice which is an impediment to securing to [black citizens] that equal justice, which the law aims to secure to all others.’” (72 A.B.A.J. 68, July, 1986) With the Court’s ruling new standards were set that required the defendant to show: --That they are members of a cognizable racial group and that the prosecutor has exercised peremptory challenges to remove from the venire members of the defendants’ race --The defendants may rely on the fact that peremptory challenges are a jury selection practice which allow those who are minded to discriminate to do so --That these facts and any other relevant circumstances raise an inference that the prosecutor used that practice to exclude the veniremen from the petit jury on account of their race. (Batson v. Kentucky 476 U.S. 79 [1986])

The article Racially Based Jury Nullification: Black Power in the Criminal Justice system was written in December, 1995 in a Yale Law Journal by Paul Butler, and then later republished in 2015 in Introduction to Legal Studies. This article was published in North America, for academics in the law stream, or anyone with an interest in law. The author poses different views on the racism in todays court rooms faced by African Americans. In this essay, I will examine the article in detail to determine whether or not the author has been accurate with his conclusions, and whether these conclusions apply today.

Jury nullification is the act of a jury in exonerating a defendant, even though they are truly guilty of violating the law. When this happens, the defendant is found innocent, even though without an act of jury nullification they would have been found guilty. Normally, jury nullification is carried out by a jury that disagrees with a law; this is a way of indicating their disagreement with the law, and their choice not to penalize the person who broke that law. Jury nullification is a

Frank, M. (2011). Challenging Peremptories: Suggested Reforms to the Jury Selection Process Using Minnesota as a Case Study. In review.law.umm.edu. Retrieved November 29, 2014, from http://review.law.umn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Frank_MLR.pdf

Jury Nullification is the process that allows members of the juror to acquit a defendant for crimes they do not feel is grounds for punishment. Although, many jurors may not know this is an option to many cases, it is still an option. If citizens use this option in many of the courtroom proceedings, there will be fewer people who are serving time in prison. On the other hand, this does interfere with the decision- making process. This paper will explain whether ethnicity influences courtroom proceedings and judicial practices. It will summarize the arguments for and against ethnicity-based jury nullification. Including contemporary examples of

Jury invalidation is the thing that happens when a jury returns a decision of "Not Guilty" in spite of its conviction that the respondent is liable for the infringement charged. The jury invalidates a law that it accepts is either indecent or wrongly connected to the respondent whose destiny they are accused of choosing.

I would disagree with Paul Butler’s call for racially based nullification. Butler (1995) states African-American defendants should have all black jury and deems it as a legal and morally appropriate factor in refusing to convict. Butler (1995) believes African-Americans who are tried for non-violent crimes should be allowed set free rather than be punished. Butler further identified that black jurors should have the opportunity to decide one’s punishment based on compassion or “sticking together” rather than ethically legal moral decisions.

When thinking of a jury, there is a belief that everyone is fair when it comes to making the decision of whether the person being accused of the crime is guilty or not guilty because of the person’s race. What if this belief is not necessarily correct? There have been many instances in whether race has been a factor when the jury makes a decision. According to Baskin, Goldstein, and Sommers (2014), there has been enough evidence to show that racial biases influences the decisions of a jury. In this paper, the articles will show how jury decision-making is influenced by the offender’s race.

Few in this country would argue with the fact that the United States criminal justice system possesses discrepancies which adversely affect Blacks in this country. Numerous studies and articles have been composed on the many facets in which discrimination, or at least disparity, is obvious. Even whites are forced to admit that statistics indicate that the Black community is disproportionately affected by the American legal system. Controversy arises when the issue of possible causes of, and also solutions to, these variations are discussed. It’s not just black versus white, it is white versus white, and white versus oriental, whatever the case may be, and it is not justice. If we see patterns then the judges should have the authority to say something. Jury nullifications cannot be overturned regardless of the cause. Exclusionary rule, according to CULS (2010) – Prevents the government from using most evidence gathered in violation of U.S. Constitution; like unreasonable search and seizure (Fourth Amendment).

I will take a brief look at the history of the jury trial. I will