Talk:Jury nullification

Poor Article

I have the feeling that a bunch of prelaw students got excited and wrote up some rubbish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.158.210.185 (talk) 10:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Ditto this. The initial paragraph is basically incoherent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.228.88.102 (talk) 06:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Having re-read this in some depth, this is probably the worst piece I've read on Wikipedia. I'd recommend deleting it and starting from scratch rather than trying to edit it into something coherent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.228.88.102 (talk) 06:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Please fix this unintelligible sentence: "Others view it as a violation of the right to a jury trial that undermines the law." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.109.75.166 (talk) 00:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

This might clarify for those who would like to know the full definition of it:

You probably don't know what "Jury Nullification" is because the legal profession has gone to great lengths to keep you and anyone else who might serve on a jury ignorant of it. "Jury Nullification is a constitutional doctrine which allows jurors to stop the conviction of defendants who are technically guilty, but one or more jurors believe doesn't deserve punishment. It occurs in a trial when one or more jurors vote "Not Guilty" contrary to the judge's instructions as to the law. In cases where the entire jury exercises their power of "Jury nullification" the defendant gets a "Not Guilty" verdict and is acquitted of the crime. In cases where less than all of the jurors excercise the power, but those who voted "Not Guilty" refuse to change their vote the effect is still not a conviction. The latter case is a "Hung Jury", providing the judge's patience has been exhausted with trying to browbeat all jurors into a "Guilty" verdict. The judge must call a "Mistrial" unless those jurors who voted "Guilty" decide to change their vote to "Not Guilty." If the judge calls a "Mistrial" the prosecution must decide whether to dismiss the case against the defendant or retry him/her with a new jury. In either case, the defendant has not been convicted of the crime that he/she was being tried for and those jurors who voted "Not Guilty" have effected the doctrine of "Jury Nullification." As an added note, a judge who believes that the defendant in a criminal prosecution is not guilty has the power to simply dismiss the charge so voting "Guilty" is virtually never a use of "Jury Nullification." The power of "Jury Nullification" of jurors in criminal prosecutions is virtually our last defence against Tyranny barring actions that usually result in violence.(Wouldn't it be nice if the lawyers who have carried out a campain of obstucting this definitition of "Jury Nullification" because they don't want jurors who know what it is would allow it to be used here on Wikipedia) <signed by Wrmattison, 03/20/2012> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrmattison (talk • contribs)

Baloney. It's not a question of what the "legal profession" does. The law itself generally prohibits instructing or informing jury members about jury nullification. Indeed, that is covered in the article. And lawyers and judges are sworn to uphold the law.

By the way, so are jurors. In Texas criminal cases, for example, the members of the jury take an oath as follows:

"You and each of you do solemnly swear that in the case of the State of Texas against the defendant, you will a true verdict render according to the law and the evidence, so help you God".

--from Tex. Code of Crim. Proc. art. 35.22 (bolding added).

Additionally, under Texas, law, a prospective juror can be disqualified after a challenge for cause made by the prosecutor to the effect that the prospective juror "has a bias or prejudice against any phase of the law upon which the State is entitled to rely for conviction or punishment."

--from Tex. Code of Crim Proc. art. 35.16(b) (bolding added).

Further, under Texas law, a prospective juror can be disqualified after a challenge for cause made by the defendant to the effect that the prospective juror has a "bias or prejudice against any of the law applicable to the case upon which the defense is entitled to rely, either as a defense to some phase of the offense for which the defendant is being prosecuted or as a mitigation thereof or of the punishment therefor."

--from Tex. Code of Crim Proc. art. 35.16(c) (bolding added).

These rules are not something made up by the "legal profession" on its own; these rules are the law itself. Famspear (talk) 19:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

So, Famspear, you favor forcing the TYRANNY of forcing jurors to vote guilty in accordance with the law no matter how bad the law is or how unjust it is being applied. I still think that Jury Nullification is our last defence against the enforcement of bad law. Go to williethegeezer.com for a bad law situation that I am involved in. Jury Nullification is the constitutional right of juries and judges are violating their oath of office by trying to abolish it. <Wrmattison 03/2/2012 11:00 AM>

I don't see anywhere that Famspear favors anything. Famspear is only quoting what the laws say in response to what you have been adding to the article and here. What you think about Jury Nullification is not pertinent to this article or to this page. This page's only purpose is to discuss how to improve the article not to discuss your experiences or opinions on the subject. GB fan 17:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

"THE LAW" is not SACRED! It is the man made rules that we must normally abide by in order to remain free of punishment in our communities, counties, states, and country. IN MY OPINION everyone who serves on a criminal case jury should be "Fully Informed" about "Jury Nullfication" as I have defined it previousy in this talk subject. The opposite of "Anarchy" is "Tyranny" which is the worst of the two. Abolishing "Jury Nullification" is the surest way of inviting "Tyranny." While "THE LAW" is our protection agaist "Anarchy", "Jury Nullification is our protection against "Tyranny." I have lived for over 72 years and during my lifetime the balance is fast moving toward "Tyranny." I support the FIJA. It's time criminal juries were fully informed of their power.

Archives

• ARCHIVE Aug 16, 2005

Camden 28. Go to www.camden28.org. US 1973 Antiwar trial. Defendants found not guilty by jury despite being caught in act of the distruction of draft files.

A few ideas to balance the US centric style.

Whilst you have brought in large area of British (mainly English and Welsh) facts neverthe less the opening paragraphs are somewhat US based. I have no knowledge whatsoever on anything other than the UK perspective (though as this contributes significantly to US law, it will at least set some history.

I am also a little bit concerned at why juries were created in the first place, you state that this is because they are believed to be free from bribery. Historically, trial by jury arose because of the difficulties of securing trial by ordeal, due to a change in church law. By that time juries already sat to decide if there was a primae facie case to answer (the modern equivalent being Grand Juries).

The history of trial by jury (in England and hence the US) is related to several important events, most notebly the Assizes of Clarendon, the Fourth Lantern Council and the Magna Carta.

It may be useful for you to have a look at some of the wikipedia sites listed below:

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Trial_by_ordeal

"In the Assize of Clarendon, enacted in 1166 and the first great legislative act in the reign of the English Angevin King Henry II, the law of the land required that: "anyone, who shall be found, on the oath of the aforesaid [a jury], to be accused or notoriously suspect of having been a robber or murderer or thief, or a receiver of them ... be taken and put to the ordeal of water."

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Fourth_Lateran_Council

Canons 14-18. Rules on the conduct of the clergy including against such things as: non-celibate living, drunkenness, frequenting taverns, hunting, conducting trials by ordeal or combat

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Magna_Carta

Though you may be best considering the uk statute site which says: http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=1517519

"NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor [X5 condemn him,] but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land."

Kind Regards

Andy Cheetham

Racial Jury Verdicts

At the risk of sounding more "U.S. centric," all-white juries in the American South constantly threw away any charges against white citizens who had harmed (or even killed) black citizens, no matter what the law, evidence, or jury instructions were (see Emmett Till). Does this count as "jury nullification?" Because if it does, it seems like this pro-nullification article is ignoring one of the worst chapters in this country's history. --76.16.163.91 20:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that while the Emmett Till case may reveal many things, it does not highlight jury nullification. There must be other cases besides the well-known fictional "To Kill a Mockingbird" that would show the negative effects of jury nullification. It is important to show both positive and negative uses of a process because otherwise the article looks like propaganda, besides being less useful for people doing research in how to improve the use of the process under discussion. Rampiance (talk) 00:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)Rampiance

NPOV

This article is entirely POV. You don't even have to get very far to see it. Let's look at the second paragraph, first line

Jury Nullification was a major factor in overturning alcohol prohibition laws, and can help change the draconian drug laws right now in the US.

(emphasis added).

This sort of attitude is prevalent throughout. Jury nullification is indeed an important topic, but does it really need such language?

This article needs to be rewritten from scratch, by someone not on an advocacy group (on either site). Mmmbeer 02:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I just noticed that the second paragraph was an anon's vandalism. I reverted those changes. My mistake. I leave my NPOV nod in place because its still not apparent that this is written from a fairly one-sided perspective. Mmmbeer 02:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Jizamie 18:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is obvious proof that the US Judicial system needs to be changed. Our consequences for law breaking are too harsh in some circumstances <marijuana cases, tax cases(since there IS NO ACTUAL LEGAL LAW FOR CITIZENS TO PAY DOMESTIC FEDERAL TAX {16TH AMENDMENT}[watch America:Freedom to Fascism], and not even close to harsh enough in other cases<rape, child molestation, woman beating>. More proof that action in needed is the FACT THAT JURY NULLIFICATION IS PERFECTLY LEGAL AND ALL JURORS/CITIZENS SHOULD BE ADVISED OF THEIR RIGHTS. Lawyers and defendants have their FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT- FREEDOM OF SPEECH to say what they wish on their behalf. This ridiculous behavior in our courts; withholding information that could change people's lives. The people that back this up should be ashamed!!

---

What in the world is left of this article to be contentious about? It's been stripped to the bare bones. There's a description of what the term means, with the statement that some think it's good, some don't. Then a handful of half-formed thoughts, mainly dealing with historical instances. At this point it's silly to argue about "rewriting the article from scratch", when that's essentially where the article stands. I am taking down the NPOV banner, as it seems that all specific objections have been addressed. Feel free to re-write the article, or put the banner back if you can advocate a clear justification. Dachshund 18:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• Well, to start with, every legal opinion which states that nullification is "an aberation", United States v. Anderson, 716 F.2d 446, 450 (7th Cir. 1983), and a "denial of due process", United States v. Washington, 705 F.2d at 494. Moreover, the fact that courts have held that a juror intent on nullification may be excused for cause. United States v. Thomas, 116 F.3d 606 (2d Cir. 1997). Not to mention that, at least in the US, jurors violate the oath they swear to apply the law. A juror not willing to convict, a priori, must thus lie on voir dire--the rationales are similar to those of the Death-qualified jury. The fact that there is little power to review the findings of fact does not mean that such arguments shouldn't raised. Moreover, the article focuses largely on criminal law and does not mention civil law, which is equally susceptible to jury nullification, but a judge has the power there to overturn the verdict on a jnov motion. Finally, the examples listed are the "good" ones, but neglect the fact that there are bad ones--although they may, in fact, be symptoms of societal bias, regardless. That's just to start. Again, I have no problem with jury nullification, but come on. Mmmbeer 19:13, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• One more thing, it's a bit interesting that the article starts out saying that jury nullification is not a "a clearly-defined right protected by legal statute', but then later goes on to say "Fully Informed Jury Association work to inform potential jurors of their rights". This is a position of an advocacy group not supported by precedent or law. If anything, it is a de facto power. Mmmbeer 19:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• • The second objection is now fixed (see the article), hopefully to your satisfaction. Note that it was under the "Advocacy section", and was probably appended by a FIJA supporter. Regarding the rest of your comment: I read the article as stating that "jury nullification" is a term used to refer to an act (possibly abberant) which is made possible solely due to the fact that "there is little power to review the findings of fact". The remainder of your comments would make excellent additions to the article; I just don't see how they're fundamental rewrites, nor do I see how they contradict what's there.

• • • I started from the top, and I'm just going to work my way down. This might take awhile. Mmmbeer 03:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

---

Mmmbeer: I agree that even if the arguments for have been presented fairly as the opinion of others, and not fact, that there is a dearth of counterarguments and that this article is not yet NPOV. You also seem to be the most legally knowedgeable person to hit this page in a long time, so please feel free to add any of the items you've mentioned. Having said that, I don't think we should have an article purely about a definition of what JN is, because part of what somebody should know about it is that it is an issue of contention. To that end, I think we should work towards a more balanced presentation of arguments and evidence pro and against. I think the first paragraph is decent as an introduction, but could probably be edited to be less convoluted. I don't think a full rewrite is neccesary or worth it. I think we just need to be better about presenting both sides, and presenting both arguments as opinions. Perhaps we should have three sections: Arguments For, Against, and a brief analysis of the current legal situation. (It is my understanding that some states specifically recognize JN as a valid process, and others officially disapprove and attempt to eliminate it through voir dire proceedures, etc.)

• I don't think that one really needs to remove the pro/con from the article. In fact, I think that that is a very important aspect of this topic. However, you just can't help but read this and say, "huh, that's a pretty one-sided analysis" even if it's not clear what's wrong with it. Frankly, I think that the problem is two fold: 1) the lax use of language 2) the entire incompleteness of the page. I'm going to start from the top and work my way down. Mmmbeer 03:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

As an aside, is there any precendent on wikipedia for erasing old discussion text so that it's not so hard to scroll down to the current issues? Birge 02:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• Created an archive... it was getting pretty out of hand. Mmmbeer 03:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

---

I think there's still some NPOV tension in this article, or at least the introduction. If the article were about a thing which happens, documenting that it happens, it would safely be NPOV (and I think that applies to the historical sections). However, it's more written as an option/right/whatever, which is closer to an advocacy position.

Consider these two quotes from the first few paragraphs:

jury nullification can only be used to acquit and not to convict

and

Jury nullification is a de facto power of the jury, and is not ordinarily described as a right. The power of jury nullification derives from an inherent quality of most modern common law systems—a general unwillingness to inquire into jurors' motivations during or after deliberations.

If it is a de facto power, then surely there's a de facto power to convict in the face of evidence against. Does that have a name? Maybe nobody's advocating for that "power", but does that matter given that juries can do it, and presumably even have over the years (e.g. due to racism)? And if you accept that such a thing can and might exist, but that it's not called "jury nullification", then where is the reference to it in this article? And then the current first sentence defining jury nullification is totally wrong, since it applies to that case as well: Jury nullification is a jury's refusal to render a verdict according to the law, as instructed by the court, regardless of the weight of evidence presented.

Some of these specific complaints can be addressed straightforwardly (change it to "render a guilty verdict" in the first sentence) but I think this perspective dominates the introduction, and the entire presentation should be rethought. I suspect the issue is because the origin of the term is from the advocacy groups; was it ever called "jury nullification" before? (Note that I'm just guessing, though.) Nothings 04:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Generally, it is thought that there is no "de facto power to convict" because erroneous convictions can be appealled (unlike acquittals) in the criminal context. Of course, juries and and do return verdicts that are near the border of reasonableness. That however, is not jury nullification. Nevertheless, your point addresses the issue of when an entire system might be abused. That is evidenced by any number of historical, coercive techniques used against juries in the past (threatening them with jail time, publishing their names in papers during the trial, etc).
• Second, the defintion in the first sentence is the ordinary one. That is, they just don't do what the evidence suggests they do. This is often one of acquittal since they, in fact, have nullified the effects of the law. mmmbeer^{T / C / ?} 12:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Time to revive this issue, I think. A paragraph in the "Background" section of the article explicitly says, "in the most prevalent cases of jury nullification in its long history in the USA, its primary uses have been to nullify Fugitive Slave law and Prohibition enforcements. Individual abuses may occur, but the overall effect is beneficial." This is about as POV as you can get and I flagged it as such. User:Jaia—Preceding undated comment added 21:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC).

History

The section on "United States' Constitution Framers" (besides being poorly titled) needs content: It asserts that "The use of the jury to act as a protection of last-resort was espoused by many of the framers of the U.S. Constitution." However, the only person cited in the section is John Adams, who of course was not a framer of the U.S. Constitution, albeit he was highly influential among the framers. --Russ Blau (talk) 18:47, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

---

I am removing the portion where John Adams is claimed to have been a supporter of jury nullification. This quotation is taken out of context. Earlier in the 12 February 1771 diary entry quoted here, he weighed in on the roles of judges and juries, and the proper usage of general and special verdicts. In the quotation in question, he was talking about their role as a check on judicial power, not as a check on the legislature (and unjust laws). This becomes clear when the quote is placed in context, which I will do below.

Just before the quotation in question he stated that "The general rules of law and common regulations of society... are well enough known to ordinary jurors. The great principles of the [British] constitution are intimately known." [emphasis added]

Including the entire following paragraph, in which the quotation is located, shows that he is talking about abuse of power by judges, not jury nullification:

"Now, should the melancholy case arise that the judges should give their opinions to the jury against one of these fundamental principles, is a juror obliged to give his verdict generally, according to this direction, or even to find the fact specially, and submit the law to the court? Every man, of any feeling or conscience, will answer no. It is not only his right, but his duty, in that case, to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court [emphasis added]."

A general verdict (giving a verdict generally) means that the jury is determining which laws apply to the case, as well as interpreting the facts. A special verdict (giving a verdict specially) means that the jury informs the judge how they rule on the facts of the case, but defer to the judge on how the law applies to those facts. Adams was saying that when jurors were confident in their understanding of the law, they should render a general verdict. When they were unsure, they should leave the question of law to the court. When the judge and jury reached opposing conclusions regarding law, it was the duty of the jury to render a verdict according to their own interpretation of the law. He says nothing about the jury having a right or duty to ignore the law itself.

As the context shows, the quote has nothing to do with nullifying the law. He was only talking about the jury's duty to check arbitrary power of the judge.

[source: Adams, John. The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Vol. II. Edited by Charles F. Adams. Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1865. Pgs. 254-255)] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.171.195 (talk) 19:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

---

I also removed the mention of the Zenger Trial as an example of jury nullification. Andrew Hamilton's argument for the defense was not that the jury should ignore libel law. It was that the jury should render a general verdict and interpret the libel law in the manner that Hamilton was arguing, rather than in the manner in which the prosecution was arguing. Below is a brief description of each interpretation:

Hamilton argued that "truth ought to govern the whole affair of libels.” For his client to be labeled a libeler, he insisted, “the words themselves must be libelous, that is, false, scandalous, and seditious or else we are not guilty." (Pg. 32)

The prosecution had argued that truth was not relevant to whether or not a publication was libelous. He further argued that the truth of a publication was an "aggravation of the crime" because truth was more likely to cause harm to the victim's reputation. (Pg. 17) Chief Justice Holt agreed with the prosecution and prohibited Hamilton from proving the truth of the publication.

After Holt sided with the prosecution, Hamilton turned his attention to the jury and urged them to use his interpretation of libel law. The court was applying the law incorrectly. He expected that since they were drawn from the vicinity, that they would know the publication to be true. (Pg. 26, 28)

“The jury,” Chief Justice Holt scolded “may find that Zenger printed and published those papers, and leave it to the Court to judge whether they are libelous.” Hamilton refused to relent. He challenged Holt’s claim, insisting that the jury had “the right beyond all dispute to determine both the law and the fact; and where they do not doubt of the law, they ought to do so.” [emphasis added] (Pg. 28 for the exchange) Holt was trying to force the jury to render a special verdict. Hamilton was defending the jury's right to render a general verdict. He was NOT telling them to ignore the law. Quite the contrary. He was telling them to follow the law in reaching their verdict. He was just telling them to interpret the law differently than how the judge was instructing. Again, he was not telling them to ignore the law.

Holt eventually conceded and instructed the jury that they could determine “whether the words as set forth in the information make a libel.” The jury returned with an acquittal after only ten minutes of deliberation.

[source: John Peter Zenger et Al., A Brief Narrative of the Case and Trial of John Peter Zenger, Printer of the New York Weekly Journal, for a Libel, reprint, (New York: John Holt, 1770)]

External link restored

I reverted the deletion of the external link to Eduard_Bernstein's work. That work is quoted substantially (in translation) in the article, and may therefore be of use/interest to a reader.

uFu 21:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

flushed out the common law history

I've taken some time and flushed out the common law history of nullification. I think that it's in a bit better shape, or, at the very least, more informative. I might take up the US history in a bit, but I've got lots of things on my plate--not the least of which is a comparative institutional analysis of the jury system, of all things. Mmmbeer 23:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I was worried when I saw your edit comment "flushed out", but I see that you actually meant *fleshed* out. Wonderful! Sdedeo 01:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Ha! Yes, "fleshed". Mmmbeer 11:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Corrections

I went ahead and fixed a couple of items in this article relating to seventeenth-century England. The ability of courts to punish jurors for their verdicts was removed judically (by the precident of Bushnell's Case), rather than legistlatively (though there had been some talk of this in Parliament in 1667/8).

Copyvio material removed

A large amount of material copied directly from various other webpages - some of it with copyright notices included in the material - without evidence of license or permission has been removed from this page. Posters are certainly free to post links to these pages, but please do not post copyrighted content to Wikipedia. This policy applies to talk pages as well, as the law certainly makes no distinction of where infringing material is used. Cheers! BD2412 T 19:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Misleading Link

The link to "Lord Halifax" in the William Penn case leads to a wikipedia article on an entirely different Lord Halifax who wasn't alive at the time.

Jury Nullification: definition, origin, history, purpuse, right, duty, etc.

After reading the article, other wikipedia related articles and links I realized that people who wrote the article do not fully understand the true purpuse, importance and righteousness of the jury nullification. Jury nullification is a tool of justice, an integral part of the "rule of law" and the final check against government 's oppression. Here I provide some important articles to review:

http://www.friesian.com/nullif.htm

http://www.jurorsrule.com/Historical_Quotations.html

http://www.crfc.org/americanjury/lessons/nullification/definitions.html

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/zenger/zengeraccount.html

http://www.lysanderspooner.org/bib_new.htm

P.S. In cases where UN resolutions, rulings or instructions according to the international laws are in conflict with US interests or benefits, the country invokes its veto power and doesn't comply with the ruling. When judges deny jurors' right to consider the law and state that the proper way to change the law is to address the issue to legislature, they should be reminded that the government reraly does the same with international legislature and just vetoes the ruling instead. Seems a double standard to me. --SPavel 20:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• What is it that the article's authors don't understand again? Whether nullification is righteous or abhorrent is really a POV issue. Moreover, nullification is far broader than simply a "final check against government oppression." Arguably, it can also be used to impose cultural norms and biases (juries convicting black men in the South, for example). Finally, I'm not entirely sure how much your sources add to the article. That said, someone (maybe me) should go back through add footnote/reference this article. mmmbeer^{T / C / ?} 14:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

  I don't follow. Jury nullification refers to refusal to convict, not refusal to acquit. How can Jury nullification be used to wrongfully convict, ie a black man during Jim Crow times? All that is needed is one juror voting to acquit. I don't dispute that a great many people were improperly tried during that period, but that doesn't seem to be an example of Jury Nullification, but of simple malfeasance, bigotry, and contempt for justice. Jury nullification is more an example of a person feeling that a law is unjust and refusing to convict; the bigots who improperly convicted innocent black men of, for instance, rape or murder, would never have claimed that the rape or murder laws were unjust. They were simply unable to see past their prejudices to the fact that a black person could be wrongly accused by a white person. Jury nullification doesn't seem to have anything to do with it. Kasreyn 12:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

  Hmm, I see one such situation described in the article, that of juries refusing to convict white men who murdered black men. Jury nullification would certainly come into play there. My mistake. Kasreyn 12:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

  (This is an error by the author of this particulr "Talk. If one juror or any number of jurors less than the full jury votes to acquit, the result is not an acquittal, The result is a "Hung Jury" which is a whole different subject! - Wrmattison) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrmattison (talk • contribs) 21:59, 16 March 2012

• I recall but sadly cannot find a reference to an old English (Icelandic, perhaps) case in which the jury returned a verdict of "Not guilty, but he has to return the sheep". J1o1h1n 02:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• I may be wrong on this, but isn't jury nullification specifically the striking down of laws? In other words, isn't the only time that a jury can truly be said to be "nullifying" be when they return a "not guilty" verdict? That seems to be the semantic, historical and legal sense of the term. This would mean of course, that those who struck down slavery laws were practicing true "jury nullification", while those who convicted people wrongly were doing only that, and nothing more.

  The verdict is contrary to law, and the law both prohibits and permits. The jury may also decide to intentionally disregard a legally valid argument which would acquit the defendant, for instance self defence, and return with a guilty verdict for homicide. This would be a valid instance of jury nullification (of self defence). This is different from a guilty verdict that simply has no basis in fact or law, but there is no reliable way to tell them apart if juries don't motivate their decisions. The idea that jury nullification is limited to a refusal to convict disregards the distinction between weak permission (simply absence of obligations) and strong permission (explicit exception to an obligation based in law), just like the widespread confusion between having a `right' to do something (which should be based in law) and the de facto power to do it (because of the absence of obligations). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.18.192.124 (talk) 12:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Nullification in Canada

I just read an article in my local paper that the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously voted to overturn Grant Krieger's drug trafficking conviction because the trial judge ordered the jury to return a guilty verdict. Two of the jurors asked to be dismissed because they didn't want to follow the judges instructions to convict but he ordered them to do so and the jury eventually gave a guilty verdict.

Justice Morris Fish wrote "The trial judge unfortunately deprived the jurors of the responsibility that was by law theirs alone". And he quoted from an old English case "It is the duty of the judge, in all cases of general justice, to tell the jury how to do right, though they have it in their power to do wrong".

Someone who has more direct info about the case should write up a section for the article. The above is just a summary of a small article on page 9 of the October 27th, 2006 issue of the Toronto Sun.

Avernar 05:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

US-centricism

The entire article is far too biased towards US practices today with only a smattering of British issues a number of centuries ago.

Either this article is in dire need of expanding on jury nullification in other countries or it shuld be made clear that this is a practice of very limited scope. US population is 300 millions, the world population is about 6000 millions.

While Norwegian constitution is based on British common law and US consitution I have never heard of jury nullification in Norway, to the contrary I know of cases where the jury's verdict was overrruled by the judge, which sure makes me wonder. Interestingly there are forces that want the jury system abolished in Norway.

Putting this article in a proper context would be welcome. --15:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree far too US centric, this article should be more generalised with either a section or new article of US law -- Hartror 04:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

/me shrugs. The English Wikipedia is hosted in America, started by Americans, and a sizable majority of the users and contributors are American. While of course we all look forward to the day when each topic is covered in complete depth for all cultures, languages, and countries, I'm not bothered by the fact that for now, "we" are starting on the home front. I think I could be safe in saying that the current state of the english-language wikipedia represents its userbase: english speakers getting together, and beginning the long process of bringing together what we know of our world. I'm sure that if I spoke/read Russian, I could get much higher resolution detail on many topics by reading the Russian Wikipedia. But as I don't, I'll go with what we together have accumulated here. Dxco 15:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It should be made clear what is about US law and what not. demus wiesbaden (talk) 16:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Kudos

I just happened upon this article, and read it for the first time. Kudos to all the writers and contributors - this is a great article! Nicely balanced, great tone, accessibly technical. Hats off to everyone involved in the making of this article. Dxco 15:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Peter Wright?

What is the relevance of the link to Peter Wright on this page? I've read the article on Peter Wright and see nothing about jury nullification there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LeslieCharlesworth (talk • contribs) 12:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC).

"Issues raised" changes

Somebody removed the third and fourth bullet points, and replaced them with the reasons why they removed them. I guess they don't know how to use the talk page? This had been left in the past three-four versions for some reason, sitting there looking all weird and suspicious with big [DELETE] labels like a shoddy government coverup. I replaced the third one, since their reasoning doesn't kill it, because if the authority is "questionable," then the issue is raised. Fourth one stays gone, but I got rid of the bullet entirely. 24.17.244.117 18:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

... in the UK

I've never heard the phrase "jury nullification", but I'm familiar with the idea that juries are able to ignore the explicit directions of the judge. I think the usual term for this in the UK is a rogue jury. A judge can threaten the jury with contempt of court, and throw them in prison, but when a jury is imprisoned by a judge for coming up with the "wrong" verdict, the public doesn't usually look too kindly on it.

I've created a redirect for Rogue jury to this page. Etrigan (talk) 09:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm slightly fuzzy about the details, but as far as I remember, the Ponting case illustrated a quirk of the law where a civil servant, although nominally serving Queen and Country, was supposed to invest all their loyalty in the government minister above them, who represented the country, and this raised some interesting questions as to what was supposed to happen if a civil servant found that their minister had, say, committed murder or was defrauding the country or working for a foreign power. It seemed that the civil servant's duty was not to pass their information about the crime to anyone but their minister, who in this case would have been the person committing the crime, and who could then use the law to force their underlings to effectively become co-conspirators. If the civil servant was to try to pass information about the crime to the police they'd be breaking the law ... the police would pass the information up to the Home Secretary, who would then be duty bound to pass the dossier of evidence, unread, on to the minister involved for whatever action that minister deemed fit. The police would refuse to take action because they weren't legally supposed to be in possession of the information. As far as their own officials were concerned this seemed to put ministers beyond the law.

Ponting's jury effectively said, to hell with that, if a politician is screwing us over for personal advantage, or lying to cover up a petty mistake by their boss, and someone blows the whistle to the electorate to tell us what the scumbag is up to, and there are no meaningful implications for national security in releasing that information, we're not going to put that person in prison for telling us the truth, no matter what the judge says. So there. ErkDemon 07:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the UK phrase a "perverse verdict"? I've certainly seen that in governmental papers. Loganberry (Talk) 15:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

"Jury nullification" compared to "making legal arguments to the jury itself": Two different things

Need to double-check some recent additions to the article. The general rule in the United States is that neither party is allowed to argue to the jury itself that the law itself really is this way or really is that way. The jury renders a verdict, and a verdict only on questions of fact (or, as in some cases, mixed questions of law and fact that are treated as questions of fact). For example, in a murder case the defendant is not generally allowed to persuade the jury that there is no law against murder, or to try to interpret the law for the jury. Likewise, the prosecution is not allowed to do this either. Instead, disagreements between prosecutor and defendant about what the law is are argued by both sides before the judge, who then makes a ruling. Then, prior to jury deliberations, the judge instructs the jury on the law. Juries render only verdicts on findings of fact. Judges render judgments and rulings on questions of law.

Maybe the article is trying to say something else, though. The article references two very old court cases from the 1800s (that I haven't read yet). The following cases -- which are much more recent, and which are higher courts -- are legally binding precedent. See United States v. Ambort, 405 F.3d 1109, 2005-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,453 (10th Cir. 2005); United States v. Bonneau, 970 F.2d 929, 92-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,385 (1st Cir. 1992); United States v. Willie, 91-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,409 (10th Cir. 1991). If the old 1800s court cases somehow conflict with the newer appeals courts (and I haven't read the old cases), then the old cases would simply be deemed to have been overruled.

The concept of jury nullification is a separate concept, though. Jury nullification can occur, but that's separate from saying that there is a legal right in the United States for either party to, essentially, by-pass the judge and argue the law itself directly to the jury. To the best of my knowledge, there is no such general legal right.

If there's not really a conflict here, maybe the article should just be clarified. Famspear (talk) 20:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe the introductory paragraph explains it well: Jury nullification is not about what the law says, but whether the law should be applied or not in the particular case. Right? Ratfox (talk) 04:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Lawful Excuse

The "Lawful Excuse" defense allows damage to be caused to property to prevent greater damage, an example of the spirit of the law is police breaking a window or door to enter a house if they believe the occupant may be in danger (the police are not liable for damage if the occupant is ok but didn't hear them knocking). Greenpeace recently used this defense when charged with causing $100,000 damage to a power station. Greenpeace admitted to the damage but argued their actions were an attempt to prevent greater damage caused by the CO2 emissions from the plant. The Jury returned a verdict of not guilty based on a genuine belief by the defendants that they were justified. As the defendants were aquitted despite a violation of the spirit of the law, is this a form of Jury Nullification? Wayne (talk) 03:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Background

Section implies that the law of the USA is always important in jury nullification. 87.194.198.122 (talk) 22:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Dark Side

Jury nullification works both ways. Juries acquitt persons proved to be guilty and convict persons when the state has failed to meet its burden of proof. --Jgard5000 (talk) 00:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)jgard5000 In latter case, the judge could set aside the verdict as being contrary to the weight of the evidence although my experience has been that judge's are loath to do so. The defendant can also hope to obtain a reversal on appeal.--Jgard5000 (talk) 00:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)jgard5000

Not Guilty versus Not Proven

There is frequently confusion over the apparent difference in meaning between these two verdicts. As I understand it, in law "Not Proven" and "Not Guilty" verdicts mean the same thing, and it's only public perception and common usage that differentiates between them. As it's currently written, the article tends to suggest that the difference is real in law. Perhaps someone who knows for sure could nail this down tight.

On a separate note, while it's commonly believed that Scottish juries return one or other of these verdicts as they see fit, is there any reliable information as to how common this practice actually is? I am Scottish myself and I don't particularly recall anything much about using these two verdicts to indicate either "he didn't do it" or "we think he did it, but the prosecution failed to prove its case".77.99.163.40 (talk) 07:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Not guilty and not proven are the same. A plea of NG is not an assertion of innocence it essentially means prove it - if he state fails to prove the essential facts of the case beyond a reasonable doubt the jury's duty is to return a verdict of NG.--Jgard5000 (talk) 00:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)jgard5000

IIRC 'Not Proven' is a verdict option only valid in Scotland. Important not to assume Scots Law = England+Wales Law = USA Law. Not sure when it is used or how often, rare, I think. ---19S.137.93.171 (talk) 09:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I cant read this.

I read at a college level but the amount of fluff involved in this article is just jaw-dropping. I heard Jury Nullification was essentially the Jury saying "the defendant may be guilty, but that is irrelevant as we do not approve of the law he is being accused of breaking." I don't know if this is true, and the article does not help in understanding the topic. --98.170.236.116 (talk) 03:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Did you make read as far as the first paragraph of the lead? Because it provides a very good definition of "Jury Nullification." Please be more specific about what problems you are having with the article. Just telling us how unhappy you are is less than helpful. You are also welcome to edit the article; for instance, to clean-up the language used or to add sources. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 13:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Ploughshares Actions

It seems one of the most current instance of jury nullification are the pacifist "ploughshares actions". Their tactic is to vandalize a US military facility, then wait to get arested, then hope to exptablish a jury nullification precedent against the policies behind the facility. It has never been succesful in the US, where the judge specifically instructes the jury to rejects all religious/moral, or international law arguments, and prohibits any witnesses from making such arguments. But in Ireland, it was successful in getting a jury to acquit ploughshares actors who vandalized US aircraft stopping in Shannon en-route to Iraq. Can someone with some legal background add a discussion of these cases? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.115.12.254 (talk) 14:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Examples of Jury Nullification

• I think the most striking examples of Jury Nullification in the U.S. are some of the trials of Dr. Jack Kevorkian. With the number of suggestions in the Discussion page, I think a list of cases and laws that were probably nullified by the jury would be of interest. Also, I think some of the tags identifying the article as biased or lacking adequate references, or as poorly written should be reconsidered. Lenehey (talk) 18:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Header Tag

The header tag claims a neutrality dispute, can someone let me know what it is? Also it claims the article requires clean-up. Does anyone still feel this way?

I took out the re-write tag as it is redundant if there is a clean-up tag. Also I removed the ref-needed tag as there seems to be sufficient citations to me. If someone disagrees please add it back and we can work on it.

I would like to get the banner tags removed entirely, but we will need to address the issues raised first. Cheers, Colincbn (talk) 01:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)