I’ve been reading a lot about jury nullification, and I get that jurors have the power to acquit someone even if the law technically says they’re guilty. But what I don’t get is—why is this something that exists, yet courts don’t allow it to be talked about during a trial?
If it’s a legitimate part of the legal system, why is it treated like a secret? Would a juror get in trouble for mentioning it during deliberations? And what would happen if someone brought it up during jury selection?
I’m just curious how this all works in practice. If jurors can ultimately do whatever they want, what stops them from using nullification all the time?
Jury Nullification arises from the constitution’s guarantee of the right to a jury trial. This guarantee creates one of a few constitutional obligations on the individual: The obligation to judge your peer, as a layperson.
The judge has a slightly different duty, due to “Separation of Powers”. The judge is charged with enforcing legislated law. The judge is not permitted to evaluate whether that law should or should not exist; the judge must presume that the law is valid unless it conflicts with a superior law, such as the constitution. This is why the judge must treat nullification as a secret: They violate the separation of powers as soon as they tell the jury they are free to ignore legislated law.
You, the juror, are not subject to the separation of powers. As a member of “We The People”, the Constitution derives its powers from you, not the other way around. Your duty, as a juror, is to provide the accused with their right to be judged by a jury of their peers.
Your obligation arises from the Constitution, and to the accused. Where legislated law conflicts with the Constitution, the Constitution supersedes the legislated law. Where you, as a layperson, believes that the legislated law does not adequately address the circumstances of the accused, you are not just “allowed” to find the accused not guilty; you are morally obligated to do so.
You will be asked if you hold any beliefs that would prevent you from rendering a judgement solely on the basis of the law, which would make you ineligible to serve on a jury. The constitution is law. My beliefs arise from the constitution, and I hold no beliefs that would prevent me from rendering a judgment on the basis of anything other than the law. I can honestly answer “No”.
We don’t actually know how often juries nullify. It is impossible to distinguish between an acquittal on the basis of “Reasonable Doubt” and an acquittal on the basis of “This law did not envision this defendant’s specific circumstances”.
Say No, but provide that elaboration, and see what happens. You’re still lying, dude.
What do I need to elaborate? My beliefs are based entirely on the law. I hold no beliefs that would prevent me from making a decision on anything but the law.
I can make that statement under penalty of perjury. If you want to claim it is a lie, make your case. I am confident I can convince my own jury that I am speaking the truth.
You’re acting like you found some defensible loophole but your cageyness means you know it won’t work if the facts were laid out before jury selection.
The question isn’t about “the” law it means “any” law. The judge is asking you if you’re going to enforce the law for which they are under trial, not if you’re here to enforce the constitution. If that is what you wanted to do you would vote guilty and let them appeal to the Supreme Court because they are the constitution people, not you.
This is a much better answer than the current top post.
Did you just make this part up because it sounds nice ?
It would seem so to those who don’t have a moral code. It makes perfect sense to those who do. Iykyk
Yeah it “makes sense” in a fairy tale kind of way but it’s obviously not based in reality.
Did you know that morality is not the same as legality? Some immoral things are legal and occasionally vice-versa.