Essay On Jury Nullification

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

The role of the jury in criminal

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.

“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])

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).

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.

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.

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

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.

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

Leipold’s view is that we should not endorse or support the use of jury nullification because it requires too much critical thought without appropriate evidence or mental training on the part of the jury.

In summary of jury tampering anyone could be a part of temporary including an attorney, plaintiffs, defendants and members of the public that have an interest in the case in trial ("What is Jury Tampering? (with pictures)", 2017). Court houses use several methods to reduce jury tampering requiring identification badges and the jurors are discouraged to speak with each other about the case during the trial and the bailiff keep a close eye on the jurors to make sure there no unusual activity among jurors ("What is Jury Tampering? (with pictures)", 2017). Occasionally the topics occur in the following discussion of public trust crime of jury tampering in the court of law trials.

As the young generation of this country, it is our responsibility to take care of it as are predecessors have. In order to do that we must keep up on current events and have a clear understanding of the way our country, our community, and our world operate. This includes staying up to date with events in our country, such as presidential elections and natural disasters. I get many questions as to why I follow this year’s presidential election, because I don’t vote. It is because I care about our country and I feel it is my responsibility as a citizen to know what my country is going through.

Justice Evatt delivered a paper to the Australian Legal Convention which entitled “The Jury System in Australia” in 1936 . Justice Evatt’s thesis of Jury trials was that “in modern day society the jury system is regarded as an essential feature of real democracy”. Jury trials in the nineteenth century were found way before in four colonies Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and Western Australia . When Trial by Judge alone was first introduced in South Australian thirty eight were held in the Supreme Court between 1989 and 1993, meaning all annual percentage of all criminal trials in the court ranged between 3.9% and 8.9% . The Juries Act SA 1927 was amended many times making some major changes. In 1966, women were introduced in the South Australian Jury system as only men were capable of serving on Juries. An increase to the number of jurors available to contribute in a criminal trial was amended in 2004 . It now states in the Juries Act 1927 under section 6A that if court agrees there are good reasons to add additional jurors of 2 or 3 it can be empanelled for a criminal trial .

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