Jury Nullification. No, you don't have convict or follow "the law."

jack3

Gold Member
Apr 17, 2024
656
270
The website is the Fully Informed Jury Association. I read it now & again. I have learned and understand the following.


A juror can vote his conscience. A juror doesn't have to convict, even if the defendant has "violated" a statute.​
A juror does not have to follow the judge's instruction to convict in accord with a statute.​
Jury nullification was, historically, a safeguard against bad statutes and ordinances. A 4th branch of government, if you will.​
 
The website is the Fully Informed Jury Association. I read it now & again. I have learned and understand the following.


A juror can vote his conscience. A juror doesn't have to convict, even if the defendant has "violated" a statute.​
A juror does not have to follow the judge's instruction to convict in accord with a statute.​
Jury nullification was, historically, a safeguard against bad statutes and ordinances. A 4th branch of government, if you will.​
That’s wickedly overstated.

In NY State a jury is told that if they conclude that the evidence supports a conviction (meaning the evidence provided proof beyond a reasonable doubt as to each element of a charged crime) that they MUST vote guilty on that charge.
 
That’s wickedly overstated.

In NY State a jury is told that if they conclude that the evidence supports a conviction (meaning the evidence provided proof beyond a reasonable doubt as to each element of a charged crime) that they MUST vote guilty on that charge.
Not true. They can negate the charge based on conscience. Jurors might think a statute or ordinance is unethical, frivolous, etc. There are many examples in the FIJA site and elsewhere. Check it out. 👍
 
Not true. They can negate the charge based on conscience. Jurors might think a statute or ordinance is unethical, frivolous, etc. There are many examples in the FIJA site and elsewhere. Check it out. 👍
Nothing whatsoever untrue in what I posted.

You can believe that Jurors don’t get charged by the judge on the law, but your belief would be baseless. They do.

And they do get very explicitly charged that if they have gotten at trial proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused that they “must” convict.

The specific portion of the charge reads as follows.

If you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of a charged crime, you must find the defendant not guilty of that crime. If you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of a charged crime, you must find the defendant guilty of that crime.
 
Last edited:
Nothing whatsoever untrue in what I posted.

You can believe that Jurors don’t get charged by the judge on the law, but your belief would be baseless. They do.

And they do get very explicitly charged that if they have gotten at trial proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused that they “must” convict.

The specific portion of the charge reads as follows.
Again, incorrect. Judges attempt to intimidate, but there is nothing they can do when a juror nullifies.
 
Historical example. Jurors often nullified prohibition laws in the 1920s because they thought laws against alcohol unjust.
 
Another example. Draft protest activists broke into a Camden NJ draft board office and destroyed thousands of documents. A jury had no doubt that the protestors committed the act, but they voted not guilty. It was because of growing sentiments against the Vietnam War.
 
Another historical example is that I first learned about jury nullification as a means to deny African Americans justice when crimes were committed against them especially in the south, during the Jim Crow and segregationist eras of the United States.
 

Forum List

Back
Top