Jury Nullification: An Important Right for All Jurors

An important factor is what is known as "Jury Nullification." I mentioned this briefly in my article, "Seven Ways to Improve the Juistice System," but we'll explore it in depth at this time.

Wikipedia gives the following explanation about this little-known, but important element of the law: "Jury nullification means making a law void by jury decision; in other words, "the process whereby a jury in a criminal case effectively nullifies a law by acquitting a defendant regardless of the weight of evidence against him or her.

Jury nullification is more specifically any rendering of a verdict by a trial jury, acquitting a criminal defendant despite the defendant's violation of the letter of the law. This verdict need not disagree with the instructions by the judge concerning what the law is, but may disagree with an instruction, if given by the judge, that the jury is required to apply the law to the defendant if certain facts are found."

The constitutionality of a law, therefore, can be questioned and the appeals courts or Supreme Court can reverse a law if there is an inconsistency. Once in a while, laws become antiquated and no longer are in the interest of the public, nor are they reasonable in our present day in regard to particular circumstances.

Every person should understand when he or she is serving on a jury, he or she might become aware of an awful law or condition for which the law should not apply. The ultimate factor, in other words, is the conscience, and the hearts and minds of the jurors.

Jurors' not being aware of their rights (or not being informed or educated properly) is very sad. I have heard stories of jurors being interviewed after trials, saying they believed the defendant was not really wrong, but they thought they had to convict according to the strict letter of the law. That is so incorrect, and they had every right to vote "not guilty," based on their conscience, their determination of the law's validity, and any other factors they may have chosen to take into consideration.

It's unfortunate that many, probably most, educated and enlightened jurors are weeded out by lawyers during the jury selection process. Moreover, many judges and others within "the system" tend to believe everyday Americans have no business weighing the validity or constitutionality of laws. If this were true, however, then those everyday Americans would have no business serving on juries in the first place, and our founding fathers would never have established the system as they did.

A juror with some resilience may attempt to explain to fellow jurors they don't have to vote guilty if the law is unconstitutional, outdated, or otherwise doesn't apply. A juror is not actually obligated to provide a reason for voting "not guilty," and he or she may simply do so if they firmly believe voting "guilty" would not be in the interest of fairness or justice.

It is the duty of every person serving on a jury to be in tune with his or her conscience, and to be mindful and aware of his or her rights and duties. For more information, readers should visit the website, fija.org.

http://www.fija.org
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification