Nullificition is generally not a clearly-defined right protected by legal statute. Rather, it is a an inherent aspect of the jury system under common law, sometimes justified as a safeguard of last-resort against wrongful imprisonment and government tyranny. Nullification actually derives from a pair of separate common law precedents: the prohibition on punishing jury members for their verdict, and a similar prohibition on retrying defendants after a not-guilty verdict has been handed down.
Until the late 17th century, the right of jurors to override the judge's instructions in returning not-guilty verdicts was a subject of contention in England. In 1670, William Penn was arrested for illegally preaching a Quaker sermon. Despite the fact that the judge demanded a guilty verdict, the jury in that case acquitted Penn and was imprisoned and fined as a result. The highest court in England released them and established a lasting precedent by ruling that jurors could not be punished for their decisions.
Jury nullification in the United States
The use of the jury to act as a protection of last-resort was espoused by many of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution. As a result, the United States has a particularly strong legal tradition protecting the right of jury nullification. Though the right of a jury to nullify a verdict has been repeatedly affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court, the 1895 decision of Sparf vs U.S.[?] held that a trial judge has no responsibility to inform the jury of that right. This decision, often cited, has led to a common practice in which juries are instructed that they must find guilt or innocence according to the law.
Advocacy groups such as the Fully Informed Jury Association[?] work to inform potential jurors of their rights, and lobby for changes in the law requiring that judges properly inform jurors of their rights.
Search Encyclopedia
|
Featured Article
|