Nullification Jury Nullification When One

Nullification

Jury Nullification

When one first hears the term jury nullification it may evoke feelings about the subject or one may be neutral or lack understanding of what the term means, but regardless of the average American's knowledge of the term and his or her stance jury nullification is a significant part of American history. Its also a source of heated debates today. Proponents of jury nullification assert that juries have the right to the process of nullification, even if their decisions stretch outside the boundaries of the law. Those who oppose it claim that acquitting criminals is inappropriate and undemocratic, an abuse to the integrity of the American judicial process.

In the online article "Symposim" appellate attorney Clay S. Conrad and Vanderbilt University faculty Nancy King square off. According to Conrad (1999), "Jury nullification occurs when a criminal-trial jury refuses to convict a defendant despite proof of guilt because the jurors believe the law is unjust or is being unjustly applied" (p. 1). There are numerous cases throughout American history of jury nullifications. At times the nullifications served justice well, but there have also been abuses of jury power associated with nullification. King (1999) asserts that this is dangerous because "it is not feasible to try to separate "good" nullification from "bad" (p. 4). Whether or not an acquittal was granted because of conscientious decisioning or due to unethical motivations is irrelevant. As King (1999) points out "generations [of] juries have refused to convict or punish those who clearly are guilty of violence against unpopular victims, particularly African-Americans" yet these juries have gotten away with it because the power lies in their hands (p. 3).

At this time there is no way to regulate jury nullification because there are no consequences for jurors as a result of granting acquittals and as Conrad (1999) points out "A jury acquittal, under the Constitution, is final" (p. 1). Once someone knows the facts, its easy to draw the conclusion that Jury Nullification is a dangerous practice and should be stopped.

There was a time when the nullification process was necessary. For example, "juries bravely blocked prosecutions of those who resisted the Fugitive Slave Act, Prohibition and the Vietnam War draft" (King, 1999, p. 3). The ideals of trial by jury, as they were first dreamed of by our founding fathers were certainly high ideals. They "believed trial by jury was necessary to prevent governmental overreaching" (Conrad, 1999, p. 1). The concept of jury nullification may have been established as a safe guard within our democratic system of checks and balances. However, nullification had its place in the past and that is where it should stay.

Certainly history is also stained with the negative consequences of jury nullification as well. King (1999) reminds us that, "The Klan Act, barring Ku Klux Klan sympathizers from juries after the Civil War, was passed because juries were exercising their "independence" to ignore civil-rights statutes...this is not a proud legacy" (p. 3). Let us not forget how abuses of power have found their way into our courtrooms and resulted in atrocities of injustice.

Today we do not have the reassurance that injustice as a result of jury nullifications are behind us. Racism is still a prevalent issue in our society and it is concentrated at times within communities, making it possible to have a majority within the jury carrying prejudices into the courtroom. Shamefully our courts have had to let rapists walk because "Juries have acquitted & #8230; after concluding that the victims deserved to be raped because of the way they dressed or acted" (King, 1999, p. 4). It is evident that "jurors are not in any better position than judges or prosecutors to decide which defendants should be exempted from a law's reach" (King, 1999, p. 5).

Because juries are comprised of people who may or may not be familiar with the details of the law - and are largely not lawmakers themselves - we run the risk of nullifications being haphazardly granted based on appeals to emotion, rather than through the lens of objective justice-seeking. While proponents claim that "nullification is needed for "fine-tuning" of the law," jurors are hardly qualified to handle this. The judgment of juries about the validity and necessity of a particular law is askew because they may not know the history or be cognizant of the consequences of allowing someone to walk who is clearly guilty of breaking that law. King (1999) says, "when facts are not in issue and guilt is clear, the ability of jurors to reach sound decisions about when the law should be suspended and when it should be applied is questionable at best" (p. 5).

Even with these dangers, proponents lead us to believe that jury nullification is some kind of right that juries have under the Constitution. Several problems exist with this fallacy because in truth, " the Constitution does not support an enhanced lawmaking role for juries." Jurors swear in and are under oath while serving our courts and "have no personal constitutional right to disregard the law" (King, 1999, p. 6). The "Constitution does not protect jury nullification itself. It protects a defendant's right to fact-finding by a jury and to the finality of a verdict" (King, 1999, p. 6).