Jury nullification

The Jury by John Morgan

Sir Nicholas Throckmorton from NPG

William Penn & William Mead - plaque - 01

Jury nullification occurs when a jury finds a defendant not guilty despite the evidence presented, because the jurors believe that the law itself is unjust, or the prosecution's application of the law to the defendant is unjust. This concept is deeply rooted in the common law tradition, allowing jurors to act as a check on the legal system to prevent its potential abuse by the government. Jury nullification is a controversial topic, as it directly challenges the principle of legal certainty and the rule of law.

History

The history of jury nullification goes back to England before the establishment of the United States. One of the most famous cases is that of William Penn in 1670, who was acquitted by a jury despite clear evidence of his violation of the Conventicle Act, which forbade religious assemblies other than the Church of England. The jury's decision in Penn's case was seen as an act of resistance against religious persecution and an oppressive government. This case helped to establish the freedom of religion and the right to a fair trial by jury as fundamental rights.

Legal Basis

In the United States, the legal basis for jury nullification lies in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which protects individuals from being subjected to double jeopardy. This means that once a jury has acquitted a defendant, the verdict cannot be overturned, and the defendant cannot be retried for the same offense. However, the courts have generally been reluctant to inform juries of their de facto power to nullify laws, and in some jurisdictions, it is considered a form of jury misconduct.

Controversy

The main controversy surrounding jury nullification is its potential to undermine the rule of law. Critics argue that it allows jurors to impose their personal biases, potentially leading to inconsistent and unpredictable legal outcomes. Supporters, however, see it as a vital safeguard against tyranny, allowing citizens to protect one another from unjust laws and government overreach.

Modern Applications

In modern times, jury nullification has been cited in cases involving drug laws, euthanasia, and other contentious issues. It is often seen as a last resort for jurors who believe that applying the law in the case before them would result in an unjust outcome.

Conclusion

Jury nullification remains a complex and divisive issue. While it offers a mechanism for the public to resist unjust laws, it also poses challenges to the consistency and predictability of legal systems. As societies continue to evolve, the debate over the role and power of the jury is likely to continue.