Judicial and Jury Nullification

I just found this on another blog...

Jury Symposium

The Northern Illinois Law Review recently (Summer 2008) had a symposium, The Modern American Jury:

Paula L. Hannaford-Agor, Judicial Nullification? Judicial Compliance and Non-Compliance with Jury Improvement Efforts, 28 N. Ill. U. L. Rev. 407-424 (2008)

Irwin A. Horowitz, Jury Nullification: An Empirical Perspective, 28 N. Ill. U. L. Rev. 425-451 (2008)

Kirk W. Schuler, In the Vanguard of the American Jury: A Case Study of Jury Innovations in the Northern District of Iowa, 28 N. Ill. U. L. Rev. 453-501 (2008)

Elizabeth Dale, People v. Coughlin and Criticisms of the Criminal Jury in Late Nineteenth-Century Chicago, 28 N. Ill. U. L. Rev. 503-536 (2008)

Frank A. Perrecone & Lisa R. Fabiano, The Federalization of Punitive Damages and the Effect on Illinois Law, 28 N. Ill. U. L. Rev. 537-557 (2008)

I always find good stuff like this after the fact. Murphy's Law I suppose...

A Series on the Loss of Rights: Right to a Jury Trial

In the Constitution, under Amendment #7 (for common law cases) and Amendment #6 (for criminal cases), we as Americans have a right to a jury trial.

A Jury Trial is a group of our peers (12 to be exact) that will hear the facts against us and determine our guilt of the crime or accusation brought against us.

In this trial, the jurors are screened to make sure they are "willing and able to follow the law as instructed by the court". If a potential juror is deemed to be unable, or just plain unacceptable, they are removed from duty. (This removal can happen all the way up to the reading of the verdict)

Jurors are asked to decide based on the law and the facts of the case if the person is guilty, or not guilty. What most people don't know, is that in the beginning of this country, and all the way up until the 1900's, the jurors were also asked to decide if the law itself was just or not. They had the power and the right to decide if a law should be "nullified" or not.

Here are some quotes to get you thinking:

Thomas Jefferson said, "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which government can be held to the principles of its Constitution."

Alexander Hamilton proclaimed, "Jurors should acquit even against the judges instructions . . . if exercising their judgment with discretion and honesty they have a clear conviction that the charge of the court is wrong."

It was designed into the structure of the Constitution for the jury to decide not only guilt or innocence, but also the validity of a law.

But, if the case never makes it to trial, then there will be no jury. No decision by a group of your peers... No justice the way it was designed.

Plea Bargains are the culprits these days. One fact I found is that more than 90% of all cases never make it to trial because of the plea bargaining system.

Here is a quote from the above linked article:

"The rarity of jury trials is not the result of criminals who
come into court to relieve a guilty conscience or save taxpayers
the costs of a trial. The truth is that government officials
have deliberately engineered the system to assure that the jury
trial system established by the Constitution is seldom used. And
plea bargaining is the primary technique used by the government
to bypass the institutional safeguards in trials."

With the Prosecutors and the Public Defenders working hand in hand (so to speak), it's no wonder we have the highest prison rate in the WORLD.

With this erosion of a system meant to continue the belief "innocent until proven guilty", we see more and more people being bullied into accepting plea deals, missing out on their right of a jury, and also the safeguards that are provided by said jury trials.

With fewer jury trials, people are seeing an astronomical rate of imprisonment. Rates of recidivism are blown out of proportion to their "true" figures because of a watering down of the prison system with people who don't really belong there. Legislators are reacting to give the people a feeling of security. And these laws are being passed without the jury having the ability to dictate how they apply to the court cases. Our Judicial System is in danger of losing it's ability to maintain the "innocent until proven guilty" aspect. Without our juries there to decide cases, the Government perpetuates the cycle of corruption of the system.

Do your part. Ask for a jury trial.

Jury Nullification

In my effort to learn about obscure points of law, I discovered Jury Nullification. After googling it to learn it's true meaning, I ran across an alarming trend. But first, let me help you understand what exactly Jury Nullification really is.

Jury Nullification is the acquitting of a defendant by a jury in disregard of the judge's instructions and contrary to the jury's findings of fact.

Basically, a jury has the Constitutional Right to nullify a charge against the defendant based on the prescribed punishment being either too harsh for the situation, or the law that they broke was in essence unjust. Also, if enough juries find a certain law to be unjust, they can set a precidence for that law to be challenged in court.

In the beginning of the United States of America, juries were almost always told about their right to Jury Nullification, but in the last 110 years, Judges often times severely discourage this knowledge. Recently, it's been upheld that a Judge can actually remove a juror if he feels that the intent of that particular juror is to nullify. So the consensus of late is that Judges and Congress really don't want us to know that we have a right to nullify.

I also ran across this on youtube.


I also found a site that provides just about everything you'd need to know about being on a jury. They give resources for if you are facing charges, if you are called for Jury Service, and they even have a Juror's Handbook.

There is alot of support out there for informing juries of their rights. Especially their right to nullify.