The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page.

Jury nullification refers to a rendering of a not guilty verdict by a trial jury, disagreeing with the instructions by the judge concerning what is the law, or whether such law is applicable to the case, taking into account all of the evidence presented. Although a jury's refusal relates only to the particular case before it, if a pattern of such verdicts develops, it can have the practical effect of disabling the enforcement of that position on what is the law or how it should be applied. Juries are reluctant to render a verdict contrary to law, but a conflict may emerge between what judges and the public from whom juries are drawn hold the law to be. A succession of such verdicts may signal an unwillingness by the public to accept the law given them and may render it a "dead-letter" or bring about its repeal. The jury system was established because it was felt that a panel of citizens, drawn at random from the community, and serving for too short a time to be corrupted, would be more likely to render a just verdict than officials who may be unduly influenced. Jury nullification is a reminder that the right to trial by one's peers affords the public an opportunity to take a dissenting view about the justness of a statute or official practices. Image File history File links Gnome-globe. ... In criminal law, an acquittal is the legal result of a verdict of not guilty, or some similar end of the proceeding that terminates it with prejudice without a verdict of guilty being entered against the accused. ... In law, a verdict indicates the judgment of a case before a court of law. ... This article or section does not cite any references or sources. ... Jury instructions are the set of legal rules that jurors must follow when the jury is deciding a case. ... This article does not cite any references or sources. ... Lady Justice or Justitia is a personification of the moral force that underlies the legal system (particularly in Western art). ... The law of evidence governs the use of testimony (e. ... A dead letter is used when a man, most likely a soldier, is not sure of his survival with important documents or information. ...

Historical examples include American revolutionaries who refused to convict under English law,^[1] juries who refuse to convict due to perceived injustice of a law in general,^[2] the perceived injustice of the way the law is applied in particular cases,^[3] and cases where the juries have refused to convict due to their own prejudices such as the race of one of the parties in the case.^[4] English law is a formal term of art that describes the law for the time being in force in England and Wales. ... Wikipedia does not yet have an article with this exact name. ... For other uses, see Race (disambiguation). ... A party is a person or group of persons that compose a single entity which can be identified as one for the purposes of the law. ...

Background

Jury nullification is a de facto power of juries, and is not normally disclosed to jurors by the system when they are instructed as to rights and duties. 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. A jury's ability to nullify the law is further supported by two common law precedents: the prohibition on punishing jury members for their verdict, and the prohibition on retrying criminal defendants after an acquittal (see related topic double jeopardy). De facto is a Latin expression that means in fact or in practice. It is commonly used as opposed to de jure (meaning by law) when referring to matters of law or governance or technique (such as standards), that are found in the common experience as created or developed without... This article concerns the common-law legal system, as contrasted with the civil law legal system; for other meanings of the term, within the field of law, see common law (disambiguation). ... It has been suggested that Base motive be merged into this article or section. ... This article refers to legal deliberation; for other meanings of the word refer to its Wiktionary entry. ... In law, a precedent or authority is a legal case establishing a principle or rule that a court may need to adopt when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts. ... Criminal law (also known as penal law) is the body of statutory and common law that deals with crime and the legal punishment of criminal offenses. ... In criminal law, an acquittal is the legal result of a verdict of not guilty, or some similar end of the proceeding that terminates it with prejudice without a verdict of guilty being entered against the accused. ... For other uses, see Double jeopardy (disambiguation). ...

Jury nullification is the source of much debate. It is maintained that it is an important safeguard of last resort against wrongful imprisonment and government tyranny. It is also viewed as an abuse of the right to a jury trial that undermines the law and violates the oath sworn to by jurors. There are fears that nullification could be used to permit violence against socially unpopular factions. ^{[citation needed]} It can be argued that jury nullification could be used to nullify important defendants' rights, such as the Fifth Amendment right not to testify or the right of self-defense. ^{[citation needed]} While supporters argue that jury nullification can be used only to acquit and not to convict because a judge must set aside a conviction that is clearly at odds with the law and the facts, the fact that jury verdicts are treated with great deference in United States courts means that the safeguards are not absolute and a jury that dislikes a defendant has the ability to convict an innocent defendant through nullification. Jury nullification may also occur in civil suits, in which this distinction between acquittal and conviction is of course irrelevant. ^{[citation needed]} It has been suggested that this article or section be merged with Jury. ... This article does not cite any references or sources. ... This article does not cite any references or sources. ... Self defense refers to actions taken by a person to defend onself, ones property or ones home. ... This article does not cite any references or sources. ...

Nevertheless, there is little doubt as to the ability of a jury to nullify the law. Today, there are several issues raised by jury nullification.

• First, whether juries can or should be instructed or informed of their power to nullify.
• Second, whether a judge may remove jurors "for cause" when they refuse to apply the law as instructed.
• Third, whether a judge may punish a juror for exercising his power of jury nullification.

Common law precedent

The early history of juries supports the recognition of the de facto power of nullification. By the 12th century, common law courts began using juries for more than administrative duties. Juries were composed primarily of "laymen" from the local community. They provided a somewhat efficient means of dispute resolution with the benefit of supplying legitimacy. It has been suggested that Adjudication be merged into this article or section. ...

Largely, the earliest juries returned verdicts in accordance with the judge or the crown. This was achieved either by "packing the jury" or by "writ of attaint". Juries were packed by hand-selecting or by bribing the jury so as to return the desired verdict. In cases of treason or sedition, this was frequently the case. In addition, the writ of attaint allowed a judge to retry the case in front of a second jury when the judge believed the first jury returned a "false verdict". If the second jury returned a different verdict, that verdict was imposed and the first jury was imprisoned or fined. Writ of attaint, an obsolete method of procedure in English law, for inquiring by a jury of twenty-four whether a false verdict had been given in a trial before an ordinary jury of twelve. ... Bribery is the practice of offering a professional money or other favours in order to circumvent ethics in a variety of professions. ... This article does not cite any references or sources. ... Sedition is a term of law to refer to covert conduct such as speech and organization that is deemed by the legal authority as tending toward insurrection against the established order. ...

This history, however, is marked by a number of notable exceptions. In 1554, a jury acquitted Sir Nicholas Throckmorton, but was severely punished by the court. Almost a century later, in 1649, a jury likewise acquitted John Lilburne for his part in inciting a rebellion against the Cromwell regime. The theoretician and politician Eduard Bernstein wrote of John Lilburne's trial: Events January 5 - Great fire in Eindhoven, Netherlands. ... Sir Nicholas Throckmorton (unknown artist) Sir Nicholas Throckmorton (or Throgmorton) (1515 – February 12, 1571) was an English diplomat and politician, who played a key role in the relationship between Elizabeth I and Mary Queen of Scots. ... // Events January 30 - King Charles I of England, Scotland and Ireland is beheaded. ... This article needs to be cleaned up to conform to a higher standard of quality. ... Oliver Cromwell (25 April 1599 – 3 September 1658) was an English military and political leader best known for his involvement in making England, Scotland and Ireland into a republican Commonwealth and for the brutal war exercised in his conquest of Ireland. ... Eduard Bernstein Eduard Bernstein (January 6, 1850 - December 18, 1932) was a German social democratic theoretician and politician, member of the SPD, and founder of evolutionary socialism or reformism. ...

His contention that the constitution of the Court was contrary to the fundamental laws of the country was unheeded, and his claim that the jury was legally entitled to judge not only as to matters of fact but also as to the application of the law itself, as the Judges represented only 'Norman intruders', whom the jury might here ignore in reaching a verdict, was described by an enraged judge as 'damnable, blasphemous heresy.' This view was not shared by the jury, which, after three days’ hearing, acquitted Lilburne — who had defended himself as skilfully as any lawyer could have done — to the great horror of the Judges and the chagrin of the majority of the Council of State. The Judges were so astonished at the verdict of the jury that they had to repeat their question before they would believe their ears, but the public which crowded the judgment hall, on the announcement of the verdict, broke out into cheers so loud and long as, according to the unanimous testimony of contemporary reporters, had never before been heard in the Guildhall. The cheering and waving of caps continued for over half an hour, while the Judges sat, turning white and red in turns, and spread thence to the masses in London and the suburbs. At night bonfires were lighted, and even during the following days the event was the occasion of joyful demonstrations.

By the late 17th century, the court's ability to punish juries was removed in Bushell's Case^[5] involving a juror on the case against William Penn. Bushel’s Case (1670) is a famous English decision on the role of juries. ... William Penn William Penn (October 14, 1644 – July 30, 1718) founded the Province of Pennsylvania, the English North American colony that became the U.S. state of Pennsylvania. ...

In 1670, William Penn was arrested for illegally preaching a Quaker sermon. Despite the fact that the judge demanded a guilty verdict and that preaching the sermon was illegal, the jury in that case acquitted Penn and was subsequently imprisoned, fined, and kept for three days without food or water as a result. Four jurors refused to pay the fine, and one, Edward Bushell, obtained a writ of habeas corpus. Chief Justice Vaughn, sitting on the highest court in England, discharged the writ, released them, and called the power to punish a jury "absurd". ^[6] 1670 was a common year beginning on a Saturday in countries using the Julian calendar and a Wednesday in countries using the Gregorian calendar. ... William Penn William Penn (October 14, 1644 – July 30, 1718) founded the Province of Pennsylvania, the English North American colony that became the U.S. state of Pennsylvania. ... The Religious Society of Friends, commonly known as Quakers, or Friends, is a religious community founded in England in the 17th century. ... In common law jurisdictions, habeas corpus, or more precisely habeas corpus ad subjiciendum, is a prerogative writ which requires the addressee to produce in court a person in its custody and justify his or her imprisonment. ...

In 1681, a grand jury refused to indict the Earl of Shaftesbury. Then in 1688, a jury acquitted the Archbishop of Canterbury and six other Anglican bishops of seditious libel. Events March 4 - Charles II of England grants a land charter to William Penn for the area that will later become Pennsylvania. ... A grand jury is a type of jury, in the common law legal system, which determines if there is enough evidence for a trial. ... In the common law legal system, an indictment (IPA: ) is a formal charge of having committed a most serious criminal offense. ... A rough picture of Lord Anthony Ashley Cooper Lord Anthony Ashley Cooper, 1st Earl of Shaftesbury (July 22, 1621 – January 21, 1683) was a prominent English politician of the Interregnum and during the reign of King Charles II. Cooper, born in the county of Dorset, suffered the death of both... // Events A high-powered conspiracy of notables, the Immortal Seven, invite William and Mary to depose James II of England. ... The Archbishop of Canterbury is the spiritual leader and senior clergyman of the Church of England, recognized by convention as the head of the worldwide Anglican Communion. ... The term Anglican describes those people and churches following the religious traditions of the Church of England, especially following the Reformation. ... Sedition refers to a legal designation of non-overt conduct that is deemed by a legal authority as being acts of treason, and hence deserving of legal punishment. ...

Juries continued, even in non-criminal cases, to act in defiance of the crown. In 1763 and in 1765, juries awarded £4,000 and £300 to John Wilkes and John Entwick, respectively, in separate suits for trespass against the crown's messengers. In both cases, messengers were sent by Lord Halifax to seize allegedly libelous papers. 1763 was a common year starting on Saturday (see link for calendar). ... Year 1765 (MDCCLXV) was a common year starting on Tuesday (link will display the full calendar) of the Gregorian calendar (or a common year starting on Saturday of the 11-day slower Julian calendar). ... To meet Wikipedias quality standards, this article or section may require cleanup. ... “Unlawful entry” redirects here. ... In English and American law, and systems based on them, libel and slander are two forms of defamation (or defamation of character), which is the tort or delict of making a false statement of fact that injures someones reputation. ...

In Scotland Jury Nullification had a profound effect bringing in (or as others believed reviving) the verdict of "not guilty". It was in 1728 that one Carnegie of Finhaven accidentally killed the Scottish Earl of Strathmore. As the defendant had undoubtedly killed the Earl, the law (as it stood) required the jury merely to look at the facts and pass a verdict of "proven" or "not proven" depending on whether they believed the facts proved the defendant had killed the Earl. However if the jury brought in a "proven" verdict they would in effect cause this innocent man to die. To avert this injustice, the jury decided to assert what it believed to be their "ancient right" to judge the whole case and not just the facts, rendering the verdict of "not guilty" which remains in Scotland to this day. Over time, however, juries have tended to favour the "not guilty" verdict over "not proven" and with this the interpretation has changed ^{[citation needed]}. Now the "not guilty" verdict has become the normal verdict when a jury is convinced of innocence and the "not proven" verdict is only used when the jury is not certain of innocence or guilt. This article is about the country. ... Not proven is a verdict available to a court in Scotland. ... Events Astronomical aberration discovered by the astronomer James Bradley Swedish academy of sciences founded at Uppsala The founding of the University of Havana (Universidad de la Habana), Cubas most well-established university. ... Carnegie of Finhaven is famous for his trial for the murder of the Charles Lyon, 6th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne which resulted in the not guilty verdict becoming a recognised part of Scots law and establishment the right of Scots juries to judge the whole case and not just... Charles Lyon, 6th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Right Honourable Charles Lyon, 6th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne ( 1699–May 11, 1728) was a Scottish peer and the son of John Lyon, 4th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne. ... Not proven is a verdict available to a court in Scotland. ...

Nullification in the United States

John Peter Zenger, a printer in the English colony of New York, was tried for seditious libel in 1734 for publishing a newspaper critical of the governor. The jury acquitted Zenger despite the judge's instructions; this is perhaps the most famous early instance of jury nullification in the colonies that became the United States. John Peter Zenger (October 26, 1697 – July 28, 1746) was a German-born U.S. printer, publisher, editor and journalist in New York City. ... Sedition refers to a legal designation of non-overt conduct that is deemed by a legal authority as being acts of treason, and hence deserving of legal punishment. ... Events January 8 - Premiere of George Frideric Handels opera Ariodante at the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden. ...

The use of the jury to act as a protection of last resort was espoused by many influential people surrounding the framing of the U.S. Constitution. For example, John Adams said of jurors: "It is not only his right but also his duty… to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court."^{[citation needed]} Page I of the Constitution of the United States of America Page II of the United States Constitution Page III of the United States Constitution Page IV of the United States Constitution The Syng inkstand, with which the Constitution was signed The Constitution of the United States is the supreme... John Adams, Jr. ...

First Chief Justice of the US John Jay wrote: "It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision… you [juries] have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy".^{[citation needed]} John Jay (December 12, 1745 – May 17, 1829) was an American politician, statesman, revolutionary, diplomat, and jurist. ...

It was over time that judicial and legal opinion slowly changed to consider jury nullification only a power and not a right of juries, as judges and prosecutors wanted stricter enforcement of laws that juries nullified. This shift stemmed from the 18th century conflict between two factions of English jurists, the first led by Lord Camden, which was originally prevalent in what became the United States, and the second led by Lord Mansfield. The position of the latter was called "Mansfieldism" by Jefferson^[7] and the shift has been called "Mansfieldization".^[8] Charles Pratt, 1st Earl Camden (1714 – 18 April 1794), Lord Chancellor of Great Britain, was a leading proponent of civil liberties in eighteenth century England. ... William Murray, 1st Earl of Mansfield (March 2, 1705 - March 20, 1793), was a British judge and politician who reached high office in the House of Lords. ...

Nullification in practice

Nullification has a mixed history in the United States. Jury nullification appeared in the pre-Civil War era when juries occasionally refused to convict for violations of the Fugitive Slave Act. However, during the Civil Rights era, all-white juries were known to refuse to convict white defendants for the murder of African-Americans.^[9] During Prohibition, juries often nullified alcohol control laws,^[10] possibly as often as 60% of the time.^[11] This resistance is considered to have contributed to the adoption of the Twenty-first amendment repealing the Eighteenth amendment which established Prohibition. It has been suggested that Fugitive slave laws be merged into this article or section. ... The term Prohibition, also known as A Dry Law, refers to a law in a certain country by which the manufacture, transportation, import, export, and sale of alcoholic beverages is restricted or illegal. ... Amendment XXI (the Twenty-first Amendment) to the United States Constitution repealed the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which had mandated nationwide Prohibition. ... Amendment XVIII in the National Archives Prohibition agents destroying barrels of alcohol. ... The term Prohibition, also known as A Dry Law, refers to a law in a certain country by which the manufacture, transportation, import, export, and sale of alcoholic beverages is restricted or illegal. ...

In the 21st century, many discussions of jury nullification center around drug laws that some consider unjust either in principle or because they are seen to discriminate against African-Americans. A jury nullification advocacy group estimates that 3–4% of all jury trials involve nullification,^[11] and a recent rise in hung juries (from an average of 5% to nearly 20% in recent years) is considered additional evidence that juries have begun to consider the validity or fairness of the laws themselves.^[12] This article or section does not cite its references or sources. ...

In criminal cases, jury nullification arguments sometimes focus on the precise language of the jury instruction on the burden of proof. Many jury instructions on the issue of the burden of proof invite nullification arguments. According to these instructions juries must find the defendant not guilty if the case has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Conversely the jury should find the defendant guilty if the case has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The permissive language "should" arguably allows juries to consider nullification arguments. It is also possible to receive a specific jury instruction on nullification, though this is based on the discretion of the judge and is very rare. Jury instructions are the set of legal rules that jurors must follow when the jury is deciding a case. ... In the common law, burden of proof is the obligation to prove allegations which are presented in a legal action. ...

Court rulings

In recent years, judges seem to be less likely to favor jury nullification. While unable to take away the power of nullification, they have done much to prevent its use.

The first major decision in this line was Games v. Stiles ex dem Dunn, 39 U.S. 322 (1840),^[13] which held that the bench could override the verdict of the jury on a point of law.

The 1895 decision in Sparf v. U.S. written by Justice John Marshall Harlan held that a trial judge has no responsibility to inform the jury of the right to nullify laws. It was a 5-4 decision. This decision, often cited, has led to a common practice by United States judges to penalize anyone who attempts to present legal argument to jurors and to declare a mistrial if such argument has been presented to them. Jurors are likely to be struck from the panel during voir dire if they reveal awareness of the concept of jury nullification.^[14] Year 1895 (MDCCCXCV) was a common year starting on Tuesday (link will display full calendar) of the Gregorian calendar (or a common year starting on Sunday of the 12-day-slower Julian calendar). ... Holding Court membership Chief Justice: Melville Fuller Associate Justices: Stephen Johnson Field, John Marshall Harlan, Horace Gray, David Josiah Brewer, Henry Billings Brown, George Shiras, Jr. ... This is about the pre-World-War-I US Supreme Court justice; for his grandson, the mid-20th-century holder of the same position, see John Marshall Harlan II. John Marshall Harlan (June 1, 1833 – October 14, 1911) was an American Supreme Court associate justice. ... The phrase voir dire derives from Middle French; in modern English it is interpreted to mean speak the truth and generally refers to the process by which prospective jurors are questioned about their backgrounds and potential biases before being invited to sit on a jury. ...

A 1969 Fourth Circuit decision, U.S. v. Moylan, affirmed the right of jury nullification, but also upheld the power of the court to refuse to permit an instruction to the jury to this effect. Also: 1969 (Stargate SG-1) episode. ... The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is a federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the following United States district courts: District of Maryland Western, Middle, and Eastern Districts of North Carolina District of South Carolina Western and Eastern Districts of Virginia Northern and Southern Districts of...

We recognize, as appellants urge, the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge, and contrary to the evidence. This is a power that must exist as long as we adhere to the general verdict in criminal cases, for the courts cannot search the minds of the jurors to find the basis upon which they judge. If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused, is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision. U.S. vs Moylan, 417 F 2d 1002, 1006 (1969).[1]

Nevertheless, in upholding the refusal to permit the jury to be so instructed, the Court held that:

…by clearly stating to the jury that they may disregard the law, telling them that they may decide according to their prejudices or consciences (for there is no check to insure that the judgment is based upon conscience rather than prejudice), we would indeed be negating the rule of law in favor of the rule of lawlessness. This should not be allowed. Id.

In 1972, in United States v. Dougherty, 473 F.2d 1113, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a ruling similar to Moylan that affirmed the de facto power of a jury to nullify the law but upheld the denial of the defense's chance to instruct the jury about the power to nullify. However, in Dougherty the then-chief judge David L. Bazelon authored a dissenting in part opinion, arguing that the jury should be instructed about their power to render the verdict according to their conscience if the law was unjust. He wrote that refusal to allow the jury to be instructed constitutes a "deliberate lack of candor".^[15] Year 1972 (MCMLXXII) was a leap year starting on Saturday (link will display full calendar) of the Gregorian calendar. ... // The United States Reports, the official reporter of the Supreme Court of the United States Case citation is the system used in common law countries such as the United States, England and Wales, Ireland, Canada, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Australia and India to uniquely identify the location of past court... The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, known informally as the D.C. Circuit, is the federal appellate court for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. ... David Lionel Bazelon (September 3, 1909–February 19, 1993) was a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. ...

In 1988, in U.S. v. Krzyske, the jury asked the judge about jury nullification. The judge responded "There is no such thing as valid jury nullification." The jury convicted the defendant, and the judge's answer was upheld on appeal. Year 1988 (MCMLXXXVIII) was a leap year starting on Friday (link displays 1988 Gregorian calendar). ...

In 1997, in U.S. v. Thomas^[16], the Second Circuit ruled that jurors can be removed if there is evidence that they intend to nullify the law, under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 23(b). For the band, see 1997 (band). ...

We categorically reject the idea that, in a society committed to the rule of law, jury nullification is desirable or that courts may permit it to occur when it is within their authority to prevent. Accordingly, we conclude that a juror who intends to nullify the applicable law is no less subject to dismissal than is a juror who disregards the court's instructions due to an event or relationship that renders him biased or otherwise unable to render a fair and impartial verdict.

In 2001, a California Supreme Court ruling on a case involving statutory rape led to a new jury instruction that requires jurors to inform the judge whenever a fellow panelist appears to be deciding a case based on his or her dislike of a law.^[17] However, the ruling could not overturn the practice of jury nullification itself because of double jeopardy: a defendant who has been acquitted of a charge cannot be charged a second time with it, even if the court later learns jury nullification played a role in the verdict. Year 2001 (MMI) was a common year starting on Monday (link displays the 2001 Gregorian calendar). ... This article or section does not cite any references or sources. ...

Although the Supreme Court has not directly confronted the issue recently, dicta in several opinions by Justice Antonin Scalia seems to imply a strong belief in the importance of the jury, in which the potential for nullification might be thought implicit; juries, Scalia has argued, are "the spinal column of American democracy," Neder v. United States, "function as circuitbreaker[s] in the State’s machinery of justice," Blakely v. Washington, and while trial by jury "has never been efficient… it has always been free," Apprendi v. New Jersey. Antonin Gregory Scalia (born March 11, 1936[1]) is an American jurist and the second most senior Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. ... Holding The State of Washingtons criminal sentencing system violated the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, because it gave judges the ability to increase sentences based on their own determination of facts. ... Apprendi v. ...

Advocacy groups

Some advocacy groups and websites argue that private parties in cases where the government is the opponent have the right to have juries be instructed that they have the right and duty to render a verdict contrary to legal positions they believe to be unjust or unconstitutional. ^{[18] [19] [20]} These and other organizations contact citizens directly and lobby for legal reforms regarding instructions given to jurors. There is some persuasive authority that to be a lawful jury trial, all issues of law must be argued in the presence of the jury, with the exception of those that cannot be argued without revealing evidence that is properly excluded. ^[21] Precedent is the principle in law of using the past in order to assist in current interpretation and decision-making. ...

Opponents

A notable opponent of jury nullification is former judge and unsuccessful Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork. In an essay he wrote jury nullification is a "pernicious practice".^[22] Robert Heron Bork (born March 1, 1927) is a conservative American legal scholar who advocates the judicial philosophy of originalism. ...

Nullification in Canada

Although very rare, nullification does occur in Canada, however the Crown (prosecution) has a broader power to appeal rulings than in the US. So while a jury may ignore a judge's direction, Canadian law allows the prosecution to appeal from an acquittal (see also Double jeopardy). The often referenced case of jury nullification being appealed all the way to the country's highest court in Canada is the 1988 Supreme Court case, R. v. Morgentaler, 1988 SCR 30 [2]. In addition, the Supreme Court of Canada, in a more recent decision R. v. Krieger 2006 SCC 47 [3], confirmed that juries in Canada have the power to refuse to apply the law when their consciences require that they do so. The issue was also touched upon in R. v. Latimer, 2001 SCC 1 [4], where "The trial did not become unfair simply because the trial judge undermined the jury’s de facto power to nullify. In most if not all cases, jury nullification will not be a valid factor in analyzing trial fairness for the accused. Guarding against jury nullification is a desirable and legitimate exercise for a trial judge; in fact a judge is required to take steps to ensure that the jury will apply the law properly." For other uses, see Double jeopardy (disambiguation). ... Holding Section 251 of the Criminal Code violates a womans right to security of person under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and cannot be saved under section 1 of the Charter. ...

Nullification in the UK

In 1982, during the Falklands War, the British Navy sank an Argentine Cruiser – the “ARA General Belgrano”. A government employee (civil servant) named Clive Ponting leaked two government documents concerning the sinking of the cruiser to the press, and was subsequently charged with breaching the Official Secrets Act. The judge in the case directed the jury to convict Ponting as he had clearly broken the Official Secrets Act by leaking official information about the sinking of the Belgrano during the Falklands War. His main defence, that it was in the public interest that this information be made available, was not a defence at all in law, but the jury nevertheless acquitted him, much to the consternation of the Government. He had argued that he had acted out of 'his duty to the interests of the state'; the judge had argued that civil servants owed their duty to the government. Combatants Argentina United Kingdom Commanders President Leopoldo Galtieri Vice-Admiral Juan Lombardo Brigadier-General Ernesto Crespo Brigade-General Mario Menéndez Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher Admiral Sir John Fieldhouse Rear-Admiral John “Sandy” Woodward Major-General Jeremy Moore Casualties 649 killed 1,068 wounded 11,313 taken prisoner 75 fixed... For the Argentine politician and military leader, see Manuel Belgrano. ... Clive Ponting is a British writer and academic. ... Official Secrets Act warning sign, Foulness. ... A civil servant or public servant is a civilian career public_sector employee working for a government department or agency. ...

Nullification in popular fiction

Law & Order

• On the American legal drama Law & Order, which follows criminal trials from the perspective of the police and district attorney, in the eighth season episode "Nullification," the members of a Christian Patriot militia are indicted for murder and armed robbery for their role in the attempted hijacking of an armored car. At trial, the leader of the militia (Denis O'Hare), who represents the group pro se, argues that they are fighting a war against the illegitimate government of the United States, and that therefore the defendants are prisoners of war unlawfully detained in violation of the Geneva Conventions. In his testimony, and later in his closing argument, he explicitly argues in favor of jury nullification in the case as a blow against the "New World Order" and government tyranny. Although the prosecution manages to disqualify and replace two jurors who express sympathy with the militia cause, the trial ends in a hung jury, as one or more jurors agree with the argument in favor of nullification.
• Although that is the only time that Law & Order specifically addresses the issue of jury nullification, it has occurred in other episodes. In the eighth season episode "Burden," for example, a jury, deprived of evidence demonstrating the work of a serial killer, votes to acquit an egomaniacal physician (John Hickock) who claims that the death of a young boy in a persistent vegetative state was an act of euthanasia.
• In the eleventh season episode "Standoff," a jury acquits a corrections officer (Matt Mulhern) who hired a contract killer to eliminate his fiancee's rapist.

A legal drama is a work of dramatic fiction about law, crime, punishment or the legal profession. ... Law & Order is a long-running American television police procedural and legal drama set in New York City. ... This article or section does not adequately cite its references or sources. ... The role of militia, also known as civilian military service and duty, in the United States is complex and has transformed over time. ... For the 1967 film, see Robbery (film). ... Hijacking or highjacking is the forcible robbery from, or seizure of, a vehicle in transit. ... A Rolls Royce armoured car 1920 pattern Railway shop workers built this vehicle for use by the Danish resistance movement near the end of World War II. For tracked, armored military vehicles, see Armored fighting vehicle. ... Denis OHare (born January 17, 1962 in Kansas City, Missouri, USA) is a Tony Award-winning actor. ... Pro se is a Latin adjective meaning for self, that is applied to someone who represents himself (or herself) without a lawyer in a court proceeding, whether as a defendant or a plaintiff and whether the matter is civil or criminal. ... For other uses, see War (disambiguation). ... A defendant or defender is any party who is required to answer the complaint of a plaintiff or pursuer in a civil lawsuit before a court, or any party who has been formally charged or accused of violating a criminal statute. ... Geneva Convention definition A prisoner of war (POW) is a soldier, sailor, airman, or marine who is imprisoned by an enemy power during or immediately after an armed conflict. ... Original document. ... In law and in religion, testimony is a solemn attestation as to the truth of a matter. ... A closing argument, summation, or summing up is the concluding statement of each partys counsel (often called an attorney in the United States) reiterating the important arguments for the trier of fact, often the jury, in a court case. ... “One World Government” redirects here. ... This article or section does not cite its references or sources. ... Serial killers are individuals who have a history of multiple slayings of victims who were usually unknown to them beforehand. ... This article is about narcissism as a word in common use. ... The Doctor by Luke Fildes This article is about the term physician, one type of doctor; for other uses of the word doctor see Doctor. ... A persistent vegetative state (PVS) is a condition of patients with severe brain damage in whom coma has progressed to a state of wakefulness without detectable awareness. ... Euthanasia (from Ancient Greek: ευθανασία, good death) is the practice of ending the life of a terminally ill person in a painless or minimally painful way, for the purpose of limiting suffering. ... A corrections officer, prison officer, correction officer, correctional officer, detention officer, prison guard or prison warder is a person charged with the responsibility of the supervision, safety and security of prisoners in a prison or jail. ... Matt Mulhern (born July 21, 1960 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) is an American actor who has starred in such films as One Crazy Summer and Biloxi Blues, and such television series such as Major Dad, JAG, and Rescue Me. ... In most countries with judicial systems, a contract to kill a person is unenforceable by law (in the sense that the customer cannot sue for specific performance and the contract killer cannot sue for his pay). ... It has been suggested that Rapists be merged into this article or section. ...

The Practice

• On the legal drama The Practice, which follows criminal trials from the defense attorney's perspective, the characters use jury nullification on a fairly regular basis, especially when they defend clients accused of so-called victimless crimes such as prostitution, bookmaking, or drug possession. The strategy usually used in such situations, known as "This Is America" to its practitioners, was essentially an appeal to patriotism.
• During the first season of the show, a multi-episode story arc concerns the defense of a grieving father (Jack Laufer) who murdered his daughter's recently-acquitted killer (Greg Wrangler). Although the official defense is diminished responsibility, it amounts to a pitch for jury nullification, given overwhelming evidence of premeditation. After a prosecution spanning four episodes, the defendant is acquitted on all charges.

The Practice was an American legal drama created by David E. Kelley centering on the partners and associates at a Boston, Massachusetts law firm. ... In most litigation under the common law adversarial system the defendant, perhaps with the assistance of counsel, may allege or present defenses (or defences) in order to avoid liability, civil or criminal. ... Victimless crime has the following applications: A victimless crime is one in which the victim is the accused. ... Whore redirects here. ... A bookmaker, or a bookie, is an organisation or a person that takes bets and may pay winnings depending upon results and, depending on the nature of the bet, the United States, with Singapore and Canada, the only legal bookmaker is state_owned and operated. ... Drug possession is the crime of having one or more illegal drugs in ones possession, either for personal use, distribution, sale or otherwise. ... Defence of the fatherland is a commonplace of patriotism: The statue in the courtyard of École polytechnique, Paris, commemorating the students involvement in defending France against the 1814 invasion of the Coalition. ... This article does not cite any references or sources. ... In criminal law, diminished responsibility (or diminished capacity) is a potential defense by excuse by which defendants argue that although they broke the law, they should not be held criminally liable for doing so, as their mental functions were diminished or impaired. ... Premeditation, in law, is when you think about and plan out a crime before you commit it. ...

See also

• Death-qualified jury
• Jury duty
• Laura Kriho
• Ed Rosenthal
• Josephine Terranova
• Ultimate Fact
• Peter Wright
• John Peter Zenger
• Citizens Rule Book

A death-qualified jury is a jury in a criminal law case involving the death penalty which excludes jurors opposed to capital punishment. ... This article may be confusing for some readers, and should be edited to enhance clarity. ... Please wikify (format) this article as suggested in the Guide to layout and the Manual of Style. ... This article does not cite any references or sources. ... Josephine Pullare Terranova (b. ... The ultimate fact is, in law, the conclusion (or conclusions) of factual evidence made by a jury after deliberation. ... See also Peter Wright (rugby player) and Pete Wright (musician) Peter Wright (born on August 9, 1916 in Chesterfield, Derbyshire, United Kingdom - died April 27, 1995 in Tasmania, Australia) was a former MI5 counterintelligence officer noted for writing the controversial book Spycatcher (ISBN 0670820555), which was part memoir, part expos... John Peter Zenger (October 26, 1697 – July 28, 1746) was a German-born U.S. printer, publisher, editor and journalist in New York City. ... Citizens Rule Book is an anonymously written short manual about the rights of juries in the United States. ...

References

Eduard Bernstein, Sozialismus und Demokratie in der grossen englischen Revolution (1895); trans. H.J.Stenning (1963, NYC) as Cromwell and Communism: Socialism and Democracy in the Great English Revolution, Library of Congress 63-18392.

1. ^ Gaspee Affair
2. ^ Trial of the Quaker William Penn (founder of Pennsylvania), 1670 and Trial of Penn and Mead (HTML)
3. ^ Clive Ponting and "Troubled history of Official Secrets Act", 1985
4. ^ Kennedy, Randall. "Racial Conduct by Jurors and Judges: The Problem of the Tainted Conviction," pp. 277-282, and "Black Power in the Jury Box?", pp. 295-310, Race, Crime and the Law (1997).
5. ^ Bushell's Case trial report.
6. ^ Simon Stern, "Between Local Knowledge and National Politics: Debating Rationales for Jury Nullification after Bushell’s Case," Yale Law Journal 111 (2002): 1815-48.
7. ^ Letter to James Madison, February 17, 1826, complaining of Mansfieldism
8. ^ Mansfieldism Reconsidered, by Jon Roland
9. ^ Cato.
10. ^ UMKC.
11. ^ ^{a b} Conrad on Jury Duty.
12. ^ Washington Post.
13. ^ Games v. Stiles ex dem Dunn
14. ^ "...the court can also attempt to prevent such an occurrence of juror nullification by (1) informing prospective jurors at the outset that jurors have no authority to disregard the law and (2) obtaining their assurance that they will not do so if chosen to serve on the jury." People v. Estrada, 06 S.O.S. 3702 (2006).
15. ^ U.S. v Dougherty
16. ^ U.S. v. Thomas No. 95-1337 (2nd Cir. 5-20-97).
17. ^ "Justices Say Jurors May Not Vote Conscience", SMC, 2001-05-08. Retrieved on 2006-12-17. 
18. ^ Fully Informed Jury Association
19. ^ The Jury Rights Project
20. ^ http://www.jurypower.org The Jury Education Committee]
21. ^ Constitution Society
22. ^ Thomas More for Our Season Robert H. Bork

SMC may stand for: SMC connector (SubMiniature version C connectors for radio-frequency circuits) SMC Corporation of America (pneumatic automation products) SMC Marine Services (ocean going bulk cargo shipping) SMC Networks (semiconductors) San Mateo County Santa Monica College Science Media Centre at the Royal Institution of Great Britain Scottish Mountaineering... Year 2006 (MMVI) was a common year starting on Sunday of the Gregorian calendar. ... December 17 is the 351st day of the year (352nd in leap years) in the Gregorian calendar. ...

External links

• "Cromwell and Communism" aka Socialism and Democracy in the Great English Revolution
• Jury Nullification by Doug Linder
• Jury Nullification: Why you should know what it is by Russ Emal
• Juror's Handbook - A Citizen's Guide to Jury Duty by the American Jury Institute
• Essay on the Trial by Jury by Lysander Spooner
• FIJA - Fully Informed Jury Association
• JURYGEEK - Clay S. Conrad's Jurygeek Blawg