What Is Jury Nullification?

One reason why jury trials shouldn’t be an option is because jurors are incompetent. The cartoon of Document E isn’t just humorous, it’s also pretty true. Jurors are forced

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

Juries specifically in the United States serve a very large political significance. Majority of the time they determine the fate of those on trial. Juries are used to protect the rights of the people and work hand in hand with the judge to determine the outcome of cases to the best of their ability. Working hand in hand means the Judge determines what laws are applied to each specific case, while the jury works to decide on the facts. Jurors are held to a high degree due to the fact they must focus on fact, remain impartial, and be honest. Very much power is given to juries in the court of law which in turn shows that large political significance juries hold. While juries hold a large significance politically, one of arguably their strongest weapons is the use of jury nullification. Jury nullification refers to right of juries to nullify, or refuse to apply law in criminal cases despite facts that support a finding that the law was violated. It is an extremely powerful component of law because a defendant could have all the facts and evidence pointing to their guilt, but if the jury feels a certain way about a law or situation, then they have the right to pass on all the facts presented and acquit a defendant that in most cases would be found guilty. Also they could use if they found a specific law being applied to the defendant as an unjust law or the way a law is applied. But largely in the past, specifically during the Jim Crow era, it was used as a way to acquit those

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

The reason being is that some of the jurors may get together and discuss what they think about the case, whether or not the suspect is guilty. By doing so, the jurors may have different opinions and they may try to sway someone a specific way. When something like this happens, the defendent will no longer have a fair trial or a fair verdict (Zerman 62). Sometimes there are cases involving people that will try and buy their innocence this is called jury tampering.

Not because of fact but because of past experiences and other issues. That is why today in our legal system the jurors are now questioned to ensure they aren’t racist or hold a personal bias against anyone. During certain points in the arguments of the jurors it is obvious through what they say that peer pressure plays a small part in deciding whether the defendant is innocent or guilty. When the first vote was cast and only one juror voted not guilty he was under intense and hostile scrutiny. The entire group cannot see why he voted not guilty and they simply say, “tell us what you’re thinking and we’ll tell you where you’re all mixed up.” The way I see it they are implying that the defendant is definitely guilty and the juror who voted not guilty is just simply confused. Some of the jurors even vote guilty because they don’t want to be the one who keeps the other jurors from being able to leave. The system of voir dire has its advantages and disadvantages. Some lawyers use it to their advantage and hire jury consultants, who try and come up with the best jury for their case, they look for things such as race, gender, and past experiences to help them determine the person’s biases. That is the lawyer’s advantage and our disadvantage. That is exactly the opposite of what a jury is supposed to be made up of. However sometimes voir dire helps to rid the jury of the racist people and helps to make it a fair trial. I believe the best way to achieve

Under the 6th amendment, defendants have the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury during criminal prosecutions. Beginning in the mid-19th century, a jury was given the full responsibility to decide on the facts of the case (Sparf and Hansen v. United States), leaving the jury with the authority of determining whether a defendant is guilty or innocent of the charges placed upon him/her and the judge with the authority of determining the law (Lippman, p.279). This juries the jurisdiction of ultimate adjudication without court interference when deliberating. Jury nullification derives from this right protected by the 6th amendment. Defined, it is the voluntary decision and act of a jury to knowingly reject the evidence of a

Death qualification- crimes punishable by death and where the jury makes both decisions. A special jury selection is used when they death qualification is use the judge will exclude jurors who say they would refuse to vote for the death penalty. Some jurors State that depending on what they ask of violence than that I would consider the death penalty. Some believer that the death penalty makes criminals think twice before committing murder and the cost of life in prison. Excluding a murder is less expensive. With the DNA helping cases brought to court there should be less are criminals sent to prison for crowns I did not commit.

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

When a decision is made and the outcome weighs on the jury members the verdict cannot be reconsidered and the member must live with the results. Case in point is United States v. Snipes, 2001, After Wesley Snipes was convicted of willful failure to file tax returns, two jurors emailed the defense counsel and reported the “three members of the jury acknowledged before deliberations that they had determined that Snipes was guilt before the trial began.” And that “in order to reach a unanimous verdict, the jurors comprised by convicting Snipes on three of the lesser counts, believing that he would not receive jail time.” This is where our systems goes wrong, the member are ignorant to the law and believed jail time would not be incorporated

Jury instructions are given by the judge to the jury. They are to inform them of the law to be applied in the case. It includes an explanation of the burden of proof, the specific cause of action and its individual must be unanimous or a majority. These are agreed to by the attorney and the judge during the pretrial activities is made in certain that no error is made in law in which the jury will be instructed. The role is to guide the flow of the trial

Regarding the scenario given, if I was the judge I would definitely sentence them both using cooperation defense because they both played a part in the burglary together. I say this because when reading over the scenario, one of the defendant’s case was carried out for months due to the actions of the defense attorney to the point where eventually the jury convicted the defendant rather than that defendant just going along and pleading guilty like his co-defendant had done. Keeping in mind that the first defendant had insisted on having a jury trial where is he placing his life in others decide on what should actually happen to you whereas the co-defendant pleaded guilty to prevent being sentenced for too long which is usually the reason why

All the jury must agree on a verdict, if this is not possible then the

But because the juror is simply doing their job, “merely correctly reporting the fact that the defendant performed a certain action” (168) there is no need for them to feel responsible for the defendant’s punishment. This objection works by creating distance between the juror and the defendant’s fate – for, she can rationalize she was simply “reporting” the defendant’s actions. The second objection Huemer raises has to do with the duty to tell the truth. By this view, jury nullification is wrong because it involves lying. By acquitting a defendant despite evidence they are technically guilty of the act is tantamount to lying.

Some Jurors will reach a quick verdict or not properly think over the evidence just to get it over and done with so they can go home.