Jury Nullification Of The United States

"Today, jurors sometimes leave courtrooms in tears after convicting people they believed were morally (if not legally) innocent, or after witnessing the harsh sentences handed down by judges at the sentencing phase of seemingly minor cases. That is exactly the sort of travesty trial by jury was intended to prevent. If the law were just and justly applied, jurors would have no reason to regret their verdicts, or the sentences that are meted out later by judges." (Trial by Jury Website) This would seemingly encourage the American judicial system to adapt the jury system to meet the needs of our current American society. It is unpleasant for the jurors to make very hard choices concerning the lives of other fellow citizens. It is also hard for the persons who are standing trial to know that their fate is going to rest with people with little or no knowledge of the law.

In considering the effectiveness of the jury system, it is first necessary to understand the roles of juries. Primarily, a jury is a body of legally unqualified citizens who agree on a verdict based on evidence

Every day people are convicted of crimes or arrested for other reasons. Once they are convicted they are summoned to court, this begins the jury process. Citizens are randomly chosen to serve on jury duty. The citizens on the jury will use the jury system to determine if the person being accused is guilty or innocent. Trials can become very long or they can be short it just depends on the topic and how long it takes to decide on what the consequences will be. The jury system is the main trial and the main decision of whether or not someone is right or wrong.

Those a part of the American jury system tend to base their decisions on opinions rather than actually analyzing the facts. Those on the jury may not be qualified to acquit someone. In the novel written by Mark Twain he asserts that even though people on the jury take an oath, but they

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 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

Juries are selected from the general population; they are to be a representation of the people from that area. In trials with a jury, the first step is the selection of jurors. The jury selection process starts with something called voir dire, which is Latin for “to speak the truth”. Voir dire is where either the lawyers or the judge ask potential jurors questions about matters deemed to be significant to the trial. The judge may be asked to dismiss a juror for cause by the lawyer if incompetence or likely bias has been proven. (Baum, 2013) For example, a juror can be dismissed for cause if he or she is related to anyone involved in the case including the defendant or a lawyer, or if a company that is part of the lawsuit employs him or her. Each lawyer may request the dismissal of jurors for cause with no limit. (American Bar Association, 2016) Both sides are allowed a limited number of peremptory challenges, which are how a juror can be dismissed without having to show cause. The lawyer is to dismiss because they believe the person to be unable to serve in the best interest of the client not because of race or sex. (American Bar

Based on the United States Constitution, all citizens have the right to a “Trial by Jury,” which is a legal proceeding in which a jury makes a decision in order to direct the actions of a judge. A jury pool is randomly selected first, and then the potential jurors are notified. After, “Voir Dire,” or jury selection, occurs where twelve people are chosen for jury duty.

The history in England and Europe was of people being sentenced to lengthy prison terms, tortured or even killed in secret trials. If you were accused in this situation, you often had no chance to defend yourself and the charges were often trumped up to eliminate political and religious dissent. By requiring a jury to be involved in a trial, serious and sometimes fatal decisions are taken out of the hands of one or a few judges, and are put into the hands of a group of average citizens who look over the evidence. This greatly reduces the possibility of corruption in the trial. For many years, all juries in America had twelve people, which is how juries were conducted during the time the Constitution was written. Eventually, though, the Supreme Court reduced the allowable size of juries in state trials down to a minimum of six. Federal trials must still have twelve jurors. The Court also removed the requirement that juries be unanimous in their decisions in state courts. Instead, 10-2 or 9-3 verdicts are now accepted. Federal court juries, however, must be unanimous.

ught about jury nullification as a young law student, I was inclined to be against it. Yes, it could potentially be used to curb unjust laws. But it can also be a vehicle for jury prejudice and bias. Most notoriously, all-white juries in the Jim Crow-era South often acquitted blatantly guilty white defendants who had committed racially motivated crimes against blacks. Moreover, it seems unfair if Defendant A gets convicted while Defendant B is acquitted after committing exactly the same offense, merely because B was lucky enough Of course, prosecutors have essentially the same power, since they’re under no obligation to bring charges against even an obviously guilty defendant. But while the power of juries to let guilty people go free in the

Jurors have the freedom to employ jury nullification when reaching a verdict, yet they are usually advised to reach a verdict whether they agree with the law or not. In some cases, jurors have opted to declare a defendant not guilty when

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.

Juries date back to 1066 and some speculate even before then. Since then, it has varied between 6 or 12 jury members and this is isn’t because of any serious flaws, it is just how it went(Hans and Vidmar.) Juries are used to be the deciding factor in many different types of cases; murder, thievery, abuse, or stealing. Juries are backed by many articles in the Constitution; such as Article III Section 2, The Sixth Amendment, and the Seventh Amendment. Article III Section Two states that “The trial of all crimes shall be by jury and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes have been committed.” The Sixth Amendment guarantees and quick and speedy trial with an unbiased jury. Finally, the Seventh Amendment states that with any crime above

What is a Jury and Role of Jury A jury based trials are present most of the time in criminal cases and also civil cases but in civil cases it’s only used 1% of the time. The jury system is an important part of the Magna Carta [1215]. In a civil case there are 8 jurors present and in a criminal case the jury system consists of 12 people that are randomly selected by an electoral system but will be vetted to see if they are eligible to be part of the jury. The jury system has been part of the English Legal system for the past 800 years.

Juries provide a public opinion which helps show what the public would think about the case and weather the accused is guilty or not guilty.