Jury nullification

For the book by Clay Conrad, see Jury Nullification (book).

Jury nullification, also known in the United Kingdom as jury equity,[1][2] or a perverse verdict,[3][4] is when the jury in a criminal trial gives a verdict of not guilty even though they think a defendant has broken the law. The jury's reasons may include the belief that the law itself is unjust,[5][6] that the prosecutor has misapplied the law in the defendant's case,[7] that the punishment for breaking the law is too harsh, or general frustrations with the criminal justice system. Some juries have also refused to convict due to their own prejudices in favor of the defendant.[8] Such verdicts are possible because a jury has an absolute right to return any verdict it chooses.[9] Nullification is not an official part of criminal procedure but is the logical consequence of two rules governing the systems in which it exists:

  1. Jurors cannot be punished for passing an incorrect verdict.[10]
  2. In many jurisdictions, a defendant who is acquitted cannot be tried a second time for the same offense.[11]

A jury verdict that is contrary to the letter of the law pertains only to the particular case before it; however, if a pattern of acquittals develops in response to repeated attempts to prosecute a particular offence, this can have the de facto effect of invalidating the law. Such a pattern may indicate public opposition to an unwanted legislative enactment. It may also happen that a jury convicts a defendant even if no law was broken, although such a conviction may be overturned on appeal. Nullification can also occur in civil trials;[12] unlike in criminal trials, if the jury renders a not liable verdict that is clearly at odds with the evidence, the judge can issue a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or order a new trial.[13]

  1. ^ "What is jury equity?". eNotes. Retrieved March 23, 2020.
  2. ^ "The Cheshire Cab Driver: Reasons of Conscience". Volteface. October 18, 2016. Retrieved March 23, 2020.
  3. ^ Bethel G. A. Erastus-Obilo (2008). "13: The 'Perverse' Verdict". The Place of the Explained Verdict in the English Criminal Justice System: Decision-making and Criminal Trials. Universal-Publishers. pp. 197–. ISBN 978-1-59942-689-1.
  4. ^ David Hewitt (May 1, 2018). "'Not only a right, but a duty': A history of perverse verdicts". The Justice Gap. Archived from the original on September 9, 2019. Retrieved September 8, 2019.
  5. ^ Cite error: The named reference PennsTrial1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference PennsTrial2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ Cite error: The named reference Ponting1985 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  8. ^ Cite error: The named reference Kennedy1997 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  9. ^ Duane, James (1996). "Jury Nullification: The Top Secret Constitutional Right" (PDF). Litigation. 22 (4): 6–60.
  10. ^ Balko, Radley (August 1, 2005), Justice Often Served By Jury Nullification, Fox News
  11. ^ Conrad, Clay S. (1995), Jury Nullification as a Defense Strategy, 2 TEX. F. ON C.L. & C.R. 1, 1-2
  12. ^ Conaway, Teresa L.; Mutz, Carol L.; Ross, Joann M. (2004). "Jury Nullification: A Selective, Annotated Bibliography". Valparaiso University Law Review. 39: 410, 428–429. Archived from the original on May 14, 2021 – via ValpoScholar.
  13. ^ Rubenstein, Arie M. (2006). "Verdicts of Conscience: Nullification and the Modern Jury Trial" (PDF). Columbia Law Review. 106: 960.