Join Us
 

When A Jury Verdict Isn’t Jury “Nullification”

12 Oct When A Jury Verdict Isn’t Jury “Nullification”

Posted at 06:40h in Promote settlement in our family courts by ending the AFCC by
Jury nullification is often misunderstood, so it helps to start with what it actually means. When people are selected for jury duty, the instructions they receive usually say things like: “You must base your verdict on the evidence presented in court and on the law as the judge instructs you,” and “The judge’s rulings concern questions of law, not fact, and must not be questioned by the jury.”

Jurors determine the facts from the evidence presented by both sides, just as a judge does in a bench trial. Then they apply the law to those facts—again, just as a judge would. If jurors conclude that the facts do not support the charges, they acquit the defendant.

Consider a simple example. The law says you may not steal. In one case, a jury hears evidence that a child took a gallon of milk to feed younger siblings. The jury decides the evidence does not prove the child broke the law and returns a not‑guilty verdict. In another case, a judge hears evidence that a wealthy adult stole a gallon of milk as a prank and finds the adult guilty. Both decision‑makers applied the same law to different facts and reached different outcomes.

Since none of us sat in the courtroom for either case, we shouldn’t assume the jury “nullified” the law or “broke the rules” on the child’s behalf. If the jury concluded that the evidence didn’t establish a violation of the law, that is the end of it. There’s no need to label it “jury nullification,” especially if neither side does. 

  • “The jury has an unreviewable and irreversible power…to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge.” U.S. v. Dougherty , 473 F 2nd 1113, 1139 (1972).
  • “If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the evidence.” U.S. v. Moylan , 4th Circuit Court of Appeals (1969).
  • “The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both the law and the facts.” Oliver Wendell Holmes, Horning v. D.C. , 254 US 135 (1920)
  • “Jurors should acquit even against the judge’s instructions…if exercising their judgment with discretion and honesty they have a clear conviction that the charge of the court is wrong” Alexander Hamilton (1804).
  • “I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its Constitution.” Thomas Jefferson
  • “The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy” John Jay, the first chief justice of the US Supreme Court, SCOTUS, (1789).