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?

  • Nougat@fedia.io
    43·
    11 hours ago

    > Although unless all 12 vote not guilty the prosecution can potentially still run a new trial with a fresh jury.

    No they cannot. That would be double jeopardy, where the prosecution can just keep charging you with the same crime until you’re found guilty.

    Defense can appeal a conviction. But an appeal has to be based on something that shouldn’t have happened in the first trial, or if new evidence is uncovered that would have a material impact on the verdict. Even then, that doesn’t mean the defendant is not guilty. Now they get a new trial. With a new jury. With all the same evidence and testimony from the first trial, which we know produced a guilty verdict. Best chance for you is if the DA doesn’t want to reprosecute.

    All of that last bit is the sole privilege of the defense.

    LET IT BE KNOWN THAT I WAS STUPID TODAY.

      • Nougat@fedia.io
        22·
        11 hours ago

        Of course it isn’t. A hung jury gets you trial number three.

          • Nougat@fedia.io
            22·
            11 hours ago

            Although unless all 12 vote not guilty the prosecution can potentially still run a new trial with a fresh jury.

            That is still so very wrong.

            • ultranaut@lemmy.world
              1·
              11 hours ago

              When a jury is unable to reach a decision, what are the things that can then potentially happen?

              • FuglyDuck@lemmy.worldEnglish
                3·
                10 hours ago

                Lacking a unanimous verdict, it is a mistrial and they do the whole song and dance again, or the charges are dismissed (with or without prejudice.)

                At that point it’s out of the jury’s hands. The judge may weigh in and make the decision, and the prosecution may decide they won’t be able to convince another jury, and tell the judge to dismiss.

                • ultranaut@lemmy.world
                  2·
                  10 hours ago

                  Yes, exactly. There is potentially another trial, its not double jeopardy because a mistrial is not the same thing as a not guilty verdict. Its only when you are unanimously found not guilty that you definitively can not be put on trial again.

                  • FuglyDuck@lemmy.worldEnglish
                    1·
                    9 hours ago

                    . Its only when you are unanimously found not guilty that you definitively can not be put on trial again.

                    well, if it was dismissed with prejudice, chances are the judge would be very careful with that decision, and it would be unlikely to be overturned by appellate courts. If the appellate court affirms the dismissal, it’s very, very unlikely the supreme court would take the case up (and likely to affirm the dismissal again.)

                    I suspect that the proscutors would, given such a dismissal accept it and go to the next case rather than fighting to overturn something they probably won’t be able to.

                    but there is a point where they would have run out of higher courts and at that point, a dismissal with prejudice may as well be an acquittal.