Citizendia
Your Ad Here

Jury nullification refers to a rendering of a verdict by a trial jury, acquitting a criminal defendant notwithstanding the defendant's violation of the letter of the law. In Law, a verdict is the formal finding of fact made by a Jury on matters or questions submitted to the jury by a judge A jury a sworn body of persons convened to render a rational, impartial Verdict (a finding of fact on a question officially submitted to them This verdict need not disagree with the instructions by the judge concerning what the law is, but may disagree with an instruction, if given by the judge, that the jury is required to apply the law to the defendant if certain facts are found. Jury instructions are the set of legal rules that Jurors should follow when the Jury is deciding a civil or criminal case A judge, or justice, is an Official who presides over a Court of law Law is a system of rules enforced through a set of Institutions used as an instrument to underpin civil obedience politics economics and society

Although a jury's refusal relates only to the particular case before it, if a pattern of such verdicts develops in response to repeated attempts to prosecute a statutory offense, it can have the practical effect of disabling the enforcement of the statute. "Jury nullification" is thus a means for the people to express opposition to an unpopular legislative enactment.

The jury system was established because it was felt that a panel of citizens, drawn at random from the community, and serving for too short a time to be corrupted, would be more likely to render a just verdict, through judging both the accused and the law, than officials who may be unduly influenced to follow merely the established law. Jury nullification is a reminder that the right to trial by one's peers affords the public an opportunity to take a dissenting view about the justness of a statute or official practices.

Notwithstanding perceived righteous applications of jury nullification, it bears noting that this verdict anomaly can also occur simply as a device to absolve a defendant of culpability. Sympathy, bias or prejudice can influence some jurors to wholly disregard evidence and instruction in favor of a sort of "jury forgiveness. "

“ I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution. ”

—Thomas Jefferson, 1789 letter to Thomas Paine

Historical examples include American revolutionaries who refused to convict under English law,[1] juries who refuse to convict due to perceived injustice of a law in general,[2] the perceived injustice of the way the law is applied in particular cases,[3] and cases where the juries have refused to convict due to their own prejudices such as the race of one of the parties in the case. Thomas Jefferson (April 13 1743 – July 4 1826 was the third President of the United States (1801–1809 the principal author of the Declaration of Independence Thomas Paine (January 29 1737 &ndash June 8 1809 was an English Pamphleteer, Revolutionary, radical, Inventor, and Intellectual English law is the legal system of England and Wales, and is the basis of Common law legal systems used in most Commonwealth countriesand the The word prejudice refers to prejudgment making a decision before becoming aware of the relevant facts of a case or event The term race or racial group usually refers to the concept of categorizing Humans into Populations or groups on the basis of various sets A party is a Person or group of persons that compose a single Entity which can be identified as one for the purposes of the Law. [4]

Contents

Background

Jury nullification is a de facto and traditional power of juries, not normally disclosed to jurors by the system when they are instructed as to rights and duties. The power of jury nullification derives from an inherent quality of most modern common law systems—a general unwillingness to inquire into jurors' motivations during or after deliberations. Common law refers to law and the corresponding legal system developed through decisions of courts and similar tribunals rather than through legislative statutes or executive Motivation is the reason or reasons for engaging in a particular behavior especially Human behavior as studied in Philosophy, Conflict, Economics This article refers to legal deliberation for other meanings of the word refer to its Wiktionary entry. A jury's ability to nullify the law is further supported by two common law precedents: the prohibition on punishing jury members for their verdict, and the prohibition (in some countries) on retrying defendants after an acquittal; and the constitutional prohibition on retrying criminal defendants (see related topics res judicata and double jeopardy). In Common law legal systems, a precedent or authority is a Legal case establishing a principle or rule that a Court or other judicial In Criminal law, an acquittal is a verdict of not guilty, or some similar end of the proceeding that terminates it with prejudice without a verdict The term criminal law, sometimes called penal law, refers to any of various bodies of rules in different Jurisdictions whose common characteristic is the potential Res judicata or res iudicata ( Latin for "a matter judged" is in both civil law and Common law legal systems Double jeopardy (non bis in idem is a Procedural defense (and in many countries such as the United States, Canada, Mexico and India

Jury nullification is the source of much debate. Some maintain that it is an important safeguard of last resort against wrongful imprisonment and government tyranny. Others view it as an abuse of the right to a jury trial that undermines the law. Some view it as a violation of the oath sworn to by jurors. An oath (from Anglo-Saxon āð, also called plight) is either a Promise or a Statement of Fact calling Others view the requirement that jurors take an oath to be unlawful while still others view the oath's reference to "deliverance" to require nullification of unjust law: "will well and truly try and a true deliverance make between the United States and the defendant at the bar, and a true verdict render according to the evidence, so help [me] God. " United States V. Green, 556 F. 2d 71 ~. 1 (D. C. Cir. 1977). Some fear that nullification could be used to permit violence against socially unpopular factions. The safeguards against abuse of jury nullification during conviction are the requirements for the jury, the judge and any courts of appeal to be unanimous. Nevertheless, some opponents of jury nullification maintain conviction through nullification is sufficiently threatening to minority rights to counter-act benefits to minority rights during acquittal through nullification of unjust law. Jury nullification may also occur in civil suits, in which this distinction between acquittal and conviction is of course irrelevant.

Nevertheless, there is little doubt as to the ability of a jury to nullify the law. Today, there are several issues raised by jury nullification.

Common law precedent

The early history of juries supports the recognition of the de facto power of nullification. By the 12th century, common law courts began using juries for more than administrative duties. Juries were composed primarily of "laymen" from the local community. They provided a somewhat efficient means of dispute resolution with the benefit of supplying legitimacy. Dispute resolution is the process of resolving disputes between parties.

Largely, the earliest juries returned verdicts in accordance with the judge or the crown. This was achieved either by "packing the jury" or by "writ of attaint". A writ of attaint is an obsolete Writ in English law, issued to inquire whether a jury had given a false verdict in a trial Juries were packed by hand-selecting or by bribing the jury so as to return the desired verdict. Bribery, a form of pecuniary corruption is an act usually implying money or gift given that alters the behaviour of the recipient in ways not consistent with the duties of that person In cases of treason or sedition, this was frequently the case. In Law, treason is the Crime that covers some of the more serious acts of disloyalty to one's sovereign or Nation. This is about the law term For other uses see Sedition (disambiguation Sedition is a term of Law which refers to covert conduct In addition, the writ of attaint allowed a judge to retry the case in front of a second jury when the judge believed the first jury returned a "false verdict". If the second jury returned a different verdict, that verdict was imposed and the first jury was imprisoned or fined.

This history, however, is marked by a number of notable exceptions. In 1554, a jury acquitted Sir Nicholas Throckmorton, but was severely punished by the court. Sir Nicholas Throckmorton (or Throgmorton) (c 1515/1516 &ndash 12 February, 1571) was an English diplomat and Politician Almost a century later in 1649, in the first known attempt to argue for jury nullification, a jury likewise acquitted John Lilburne for his part in inciting a rebellion against the Cromwell regime. John Lilburne (1614&ndash 29 August 1657) also known as Freeborn John, was an agitator in England before during and after the Oliver Cromwell (25 April 1599 Old Style &ndash 3 September 1658 Old Style) was an English military and political leader best known The theoretician and politician Eduard Bernstein wrote of John Lilburne's trial:

His contention that the constitution of the Court was contrary to the fundamental laws of the country was unheeded, and his claim that the jury was legally entitled to judge not only as to matters of fact but also as to the application of the law itself, as the Judges represented only 'Norman intruders', whom the jury might here ignore in reaching a verdict, was described by an enraged judge as 'damnable, blasphemous heresy. Eduard Bernstein ( January 6 1850 December 18 1932) was a German social democratic theoretician and ' This view was not shared by the jury, which, after three days’ hearing, acquitted Lilburne — who had defended himself as skilfully as any lawyer could have done — to the great horror of the Judges and the chagrin of the majority of the Council of State. The Judges were so astonished at the verdict of the jury that they had to repeat their question before they would believe their ears, but the public which crowded the judgment hall, on the announcement of the verdict, broke out into cheers so loud and long as, according to the unanimous testimony of contemporary reporters, had never before been heard in the Guildhall. The cheering and waving of caps continued for over half an hour, while the Judges sat, turning white and red in turns, and spread thence to the masses in London and the suburbs. At night bonfires were lighted, and even during the following days the event was the occasion of joyful demonstrations. [5]

In 1653 Lilburne was on trial again and asked the jury to acquit him if it found the death penalty "unconscionably severe" in proportion to the crime he committed. The jury found Lilburne "Not guilty of any crime worthy of death".

By the late 17th century, the court's ability to punish juries was removed in Bushell's Case[6] involving a juror on the case against William Penn. Bushel’s Case (1670 is a famous English decision on the role of juries. William Penn ( October 14, 1644 – July 30, 1718) was founder and "Absolute Proprietor" of the Province of Pennsylvania,

In 1670, William Penn and William Mead were arrested for illegally preaching a Quaker sermon and disturbing the peace. William Penn ( October 14, 1644 – July 30, 1718) was founder and "Absolute Proprietor" of the Province of Pennsylvania, William Rutherford Mead (1846 &ndash 1928 was an American Engineer, a part of the McKim Mead and White firm Four jurors, led by Edward Bushell refused to find them guilty but instead of dismissing the jury the judge sent them back for further deliberations. Despite the fact that the judge demanded a guilty verdict, the jury this time unanimously found Penn guilty of preaching but acquitted him on the charge of disturbing the peace and acquitted Mead of all charges. The jury was then subsequently kept for three days without "meat, drink, fire and tobacco" to force them to bring in a guilty verdict and when they failed to do so the judge ended the trial. As punishment the judge ordered the jurors imprisoned until they paid a fine to the court. Four jurors refused to pay the fine and after several months, Edward Bushell sought a writ of habeas corpus. Habeas corpus (ˈheɪbiəs ˈkɔɹpəs ( Latin: command that you have the body is the name of a legal action or Writ, through which a person can seek relief Chief Justice Vaughn, sitting on the Court of Common Pleas, discharged the writ, released them, called the power to punish a jury "absurd" and forbade judges from punishing jurors for returning a verdict the judge disagreed with. [7]

In 1681, a grand jury refused to indict the Earl of Shaftesbury. In the Common law, a grand jury is a type of Jury which determines whether there is enough evidence for a trial. In the Common law legal system an indictment (ɪnˈdaɪtmənt (in-DITE-mint is a formal accusation of having committed a criminal offense Anthony Ashley-Cooper 1st Earl of Shaftesbury ( July 22, 1621 &ndash January 21, 1683) known as Sir Anthony Ashley-Cooper Then in 1688, a jury acquitted the Archbishop of Canterbury and six other Anglican bishops of seditious libel. The Archbishop of Canterbury is the chief bishop and principal leader of the Church of England, the symbolic head of the worldwide Anglican Communion and the Anglicanism is a tradition of Christian faith Churches in this tradition either have historical connections to the Church of England or have similar beliefs Seditious libel is a criminal offence under English Common law.

Juries continued, even in non-criminal cases, to act in defiance of the crown. In 1763 and in 1765, juries awarded £4,000 and £300 to John Wilkes and John Entwick, respectively, in separate suits for trespass against the crown's messengers. John Wilkes ( 17 October 1725 – 26 December 1797) was an English radical, journalist and politician Trespass (Fr trespas a crime properly a stepping across from Lat In both cases, messengers were sent by Lord Halifax to seize allegedly libelous papers.

In Scotland jury nullification had a profound effect bringing in (or as others believed reviving) the verdict of "not guilty". Scotland ( Gaelic: Alba) is a Country in northwest Europethat occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain. Not proven is a Verdict available to a court in Scotland. Under Scots law, a criminal trial may end in one of three verdicts It was in 1728 that one Carnegie of Finhaven accidentally killed the Scottish Earl of Strathmore. Carnegie of Finhaven is famous for his trial for the murder of Charles Lyon 6th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne which resulted in the Not guilty verdict becoming Charles Lyon 6th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne (c1699 &ndash 11 May 1728) was a Scottish peer and the son of John Lyon 4th Earl of Strathmore As the defendant had undoubtedly killed the Earl, the law (as it stood) required the jury merely to look at the facts and pass a verdict of "proven" or "not proven" depending on whether they believed the facts proved the defendant had killed the Earl. Not proven is a Verdict available to a court in Scotland. Under Scots law, a criminal trial may end in one of three verdicts However if the jury brought in a "proven" verdict they would in effect cause this innocent man to die. To avert this injustice, the jury decided to assert what it believed to be their "ancient right" to judge the whole case and not just the facts, rendering the verdict of "not guilty" which remains in Scotland to this day. Over time, however, juries have tended to favour the "not guilty" verdict over "not proven" and with this the interpretation has changed. Now the "not guilty" verdict has become the normal verdict when a jury is convinced of innocence and the "not proven" verdict is only used when the jury is not certain of innocence or guilt.

Standard jury trial practice in the USA during the Founding Era and for several decades afterward was to argue all issues of law in the presence of the jury, so that the jury heard the same arguments the bench did in reaching his rulings on motions. This is evidenced by such decisions as the 1839 case Stettinius v. U. S. , in which it was held that "The defense can argue law to the jury before the court gives instructions. "[8] Later, judges began to demand the parties submit motions in writing, often before the jury was empaneled, to be argued and decided without the jury being present. This transition began with motions in limine, to exclude evidence, on which it was felt the jury should not hear the argument because they would be informed of the evidence to be excluded. Later that was expanded to include all legal argument, so that today, that earlier practice of arguing law before the jury has been largely forgotten, and judges even declare mistrials or overturn verdicts if legal argument is made to the jury. However, since the original understanding of "jury" at the time the U.S. Constitution was framed included the making of legal argument to them, this raises the question of whether a trial before a jury in which legal argument is kept from them is a constitutional jury trial. The Constitution of the United States of America is the supreme Law of the United States.

Canada

Although very rare, nullification does occur in Canada, however the Crown (prosecution) has a broader power to appeal rulings than in the US. So while a jury may ignore a judge's direction, Canadian law allows the prosecution to appeal from an acquittal (see also Double jeopardy). Double jeopardy (non bis in idem is a Procedural defense (and in many countries such as the United States, Canada, Mexico and India The often referred to case of jury nullification being appealed all the way to the country's highest court in Canada is the 1988 Supreme Court case, R. v. Morgentaler, 1988 SCR 30 [3]. R v Morgentaler [1988] 1 SCR 30 was a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada wherein the Abortion provision in the Criminal Code of In addition, the Supreme Court of Canada, in a more recent decision R. v. Krieger 2006 SCC 47 [4], confirmed that juries in Canada have the power to refuse to apply the law when their consciences require that they do so. The issue was also touched upon in R. v. Latimer, 2001 SCC 1 [5], where "The trial did not become unfair simply because the trial judge undermined the jury’s de facto power to nullify. In most if not all cases, jury nullification will not be a valid factor in analyzing trial fairness for the accused. Guarding against jury nullification is a desirable and legitimate exercise for a trial judge; in fact a judge is required to take steps to ensure that the jury will apply the law properly. "

UK

In 1982, during the Falklands War, the British Navy sank an Argentine Cruiser – the "ARA General Belgrano". The Falklands War (Guerra de las Malvinas/Guerra del Atlántico Sur also called the Falklands Conflict/Crisis, was fought in 1982 between Argentina and the General history The warship was built as, the sixth of the s in New Jersey by the New York Shipbuilding Corporation starting in 1935 and launched in March 1938 A civil servant (government employee) named Clive Ponting leaked two government documents concerning the sinking of the cruiser to the press, and was subsequently charged with breaching the Official Secrets Act. Clive Ponting (born 1947) is a British writer former academic and former senior civil servant. The Official Secrets Act is any of several Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom for the protection of official information mainly related to National The judge in the case directed the jury to convict Ponting as he had clearly broken the Official Secrets Act by leaking official information about the sinking of the Belgrano during the Falklands War. His main defence, that it was in the public interest that this information be made available, was rejected on the grounds that "the public interest is what the government of the day says it is", but the jury nevertheless acquitted him, much to the consternation of the Government. He had argued that he had acted out of 'his duty to the interests of the state'; the judge had argued that civil servants owed their duty to the government. See also Bureaucrat The term civil service has two distinct meanings Branch of governmental service in which individuals are hired on the basis

United States

Main article: Jury nullification in the United States

Nullification has a mixed history in the United States. John Peter Zenger, a printer in the English colony of New York was tried for Seditious libel in 1734 for publishing a newspaper critical of the governor The first notable instance of jury nullification in the colonial United States occurred when in 1734 a jury refused to convict John Peter Zenger of seditious libel for publishing a newspaper critical of the governor. John Peter Zenger ( October 26, 1697 – July 28, 1746) was a German-born American printer, Publisher, editor Seditious libel is a criminal offence under English Common law. Jury nullification appeared in the pre-Civil War era when juries sometimes refused to convict for violations of the Fugitive Slave Act. The Fugitive Slave Law or Fugitive Slave Act was passed by the United States Congress on September 18, 1850, as part of the Compromise of During the 20th century, especially in the Civil Rights Movement, all-white juries were known to refuse to convict white defendants of murdering blacks. See also Protests of 1968 Historically the civil rights movement was a concentrated period of time around the world of approximately twenty years (1960-1980 in [9] During Prohibition, juries often nullified alcohol control laws,[10] possibly as often as 60% of the time. Prohibition of alcohol, often referred to simply as prohibition, also known as Noble Experiment, refers to a Sumptuary law which prohibits Alcohol [11] This resistance is considered to have contributed to the adoption of the Twenty-first amendment repealing the Eighteenth amendment which established Prohibition. The Twenty-first Amendment ( Amendment XXI) to the United States Constitution repealed the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Amendment XVIII (the Eighteenth Amendment) of the United States Constitution, along with the Volstead Act (which defined "intoxicating liquors" In the United States, the term Prohibition refers to the period from 1920 to 1933 during which the sale manufacture and transportation of alcohol for consumption In the 21st century, many discussions of jury nullification center around drug laws that some consider unjust either in principle or because they are seen to discriminate against certain groups. A jury nullification advocacy group estimates that 3–4% of all jury trials involve nullification,[11] and a recent rise in hung juries is seen by some as being indirect evidence that juries have begun to consider the validity or fairness of the laws themselves. A hung jury is a Jury that cannot agree upon a Verdict after an extended period of Deliberation and is deadlocked with irreconcilable differences of [12]

In the early history of the United States, jury nullification was viewed favorably. The use of the jury to act as a protection of last resort was espoused by many influential people surrounding the framing of the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution of the United States of America is the supreme Law of the United States. For example, John Adams said of jurors: "It is not only his right but also his duty… to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court. John Adams (October 30 1735 July 4 1826 was one of the most influential Founding Fathers of the United States. "[13] First Chief Justice of the US John Jay wrote: "It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. John Jay (December 12 1745 – May 17 1829 was an American Politician, Statesman, revolutionary, Diplomat, a Supreme Court But still both objects are within your power of decision… you [juries] have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy". State Of Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 U. S. 1,4 (1794),[14]

It was over time that judicial and legal opinion slowly changed to consider jury nullification only a power and not a right of juries, as judges and prosecutors wanted stricter enforcement of laws that juries nullified. This shift stemmed from the 18th century conflict between two factions of English jurists, the first led by Lord Camden, which was originally prevalent in what became the United States, and the second led by Lord Mansfield. Charles Pratt 1st Earl Camden ( baptised 21 March 1714 &ndash 18 April 1794) Lord Chancellor of Great Britain William Murray 1st Earl of Mansfield PC ( 2 March 1705 &ndash 20 March 1793) was a British Judge and Politician The position of the latter was called "Mansfieldism" by Jefferson[15] and the shift has been called "Mansfieldization". [16]

In recent years, judges seem to be less likely to favor jury nullification. While unable to take away the power of nullification, they have done much to prevent its use. The first landmark decisions since the adoption of the U.S. Constitution confirmed several rights of the defense in a criminal case: a requirement on the bench not make a decision on motions until all legal arguments had been made by both sides; the right to be free of making those arguments before the jury had been seated; and the right to make those legal arguments to the jury. The Constitution of the United States of America is the supreme Law of the United States. A jury a sworn body of persons convened to render a rational, impartial Verdict (a finding of fact on a question officially submitted to them [17][18]

The first major decision that departed from this line was Games v. Stiles ex dem Dunn, 39 U. S. 322 (1840),[19] which held that the bench could override the verdict of the jury on a point of law. The 1895 decision in Sparf v. U.S. written by Justice John Marshall Harlan held that a trial judge has no responsibility to inform the jury of the right to nullify laws. Sparf v United States, 156 US 51 ( 1895) was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that federal Judges were This is about the pre-World-War-I US Supreme Court justice for his grandson the mid-20th century holder of the same position see John Marshall Harlan II. It was a 5-4 decision. This decision, often cited, has led to a common practice by United States judges to penalize anyone who attempts to present legal argument to jurors and to declare a mistrial if such argument has been presented to them. The United States of America —commonly referred to as the In some states, jurors are likely to be struck from the panel during voir dire if they will not agree to accept as correct the rulings and instructions of the law as provided by the judge. Voir dire (IPA /vwɑr dir/ is a phrase in Law which derives from Anglo-Norman. [20]

Recent court rulings have contributed to the prvention of jury nullification. A 1969 Fourth Circuit decision, U. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is a federal court located in Richmond Virginia with Appellate jurisdiction over the S. v. Moylan, affirmed the right of jury nullification, but also upheld the power of the court to refuse to permit an instruction to the jury to this effect. [21] In 1972, in United States v. Dougherty, 473 F.2d 1113, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a ruling similar to Moylan that affirmed the de facto power of a jury to nullify the law but upheld the denial of the defense's chance to instruct the jury about the power to nullify. Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past Court cases either in special series of books called reporters The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, known informally as the D [22] In 1988, the Sixth Circuit upheld a jury instruction that "There is no such thing as valid jury nullification. "[23] In 1997, the Second Circuit ruled that jurors can be removed if there is evidence that they intend to nullify the law, under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 23(b). [24] The Supreme Court has not recently confronted the issue of jury nullification.

See also

References

  1. ^ Gaspee Affair
  2. ^ Trial of the Quaker William Penn (founder of Pennsylvania), 1670 and Trial of Penn and Mead (HTML)
  3. ^ Clive Ponting and "Troubled history of Official Secrets Act", 1985
  4. ^ Kennedy, Randall. Laura Kriho was a juror in a 1996 case of Methamphetamine possession in Gilpin County Colorado where she voted in favor of Jury nullification Ed Rosenthal (born Bronx New York, 1944 is a California Horticulturist, author publisher and Cannabis grower known for his advocacy Josephine Pullare Terranova ( April 21, 1889 in San Stefano, Sicily &ndash July 16, 1981 in California) was The ultimate fact is in Law, the Conclusion (or conclusions of factual Evidence made by a Jury after Deliberation. Peter Maurice Wright ( August 9, 1916 — April 27, 1995) was an English scientist and former MI5 counterintelligence John Peter Zenger ( October 26, 1697 – July 28, 1746) was a German-born American printer, Publisher, editor Citizens Rule Book is a handbook written to educate Americans regarding the rights and responsibilities of jurors in the United States The Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA is a United States national jury education organization incorporated in the state of Montana as a 501(c(3 Judgment notwithstanding the verdict, also called judgment non obstante veredicto or JNOV) is a type of Judgment as a matter of law (JMOL that "Racial Conduct by Jurors and Judges: The Problem of the Tainted Conviction," pp. 277-282, and "Black Power in the Jury Box?", pp. 295-310, Race, Crime and the Law (1997).
  5. ^ Eduard Bernstein, Sozialismus und Demokratie in der grossen englischen Revolution (1895); trans. H. J. Stenning (1963, NYC) as Cromwell and Communism: Socialism and Democracy in the Great English Revolution, Library of Congress 63-18392.
  6. ^ Bushell's Case trial report.
  7. ^ Simon Stern, "Between Local Knowledge and National Politics: Debating Rationales for Jury Nullification after Bushell’s Case," Yale Law Journal 111 (2002): 1815-48.
  8. ^ Stettinius v. United States, Federal Case No. 13,387 (C. Ct. D. C. 1839), 22 Federal Cases 1322, 1333 quoting United States v. Fenwick, Federal Case No. 15,086 (1836).
  9. ^ Cato.
  10. ^ UMKC.
  11. ^ a b Conrad on Jury Duty.
  12. ^ Washington Post.
  13. ^ The Works of John Adams, The Second President of the United States, pg 255 [1]
  14. ^ A Mockery Of Justice Federal Reserve Banks IRS US Government Treason Rebellion Insurrection
  15. ^ Letter to James Madison, February 17, 1826, complaining of Mansfieldism
  16. ^ Mansfieldism Reconsidered, by Jon Roland
  17. ^ United States v. Fenwick, 25 F. Cas. 1062; 4 Cranch C.C. 675 (1836)
  18. ^ Stettinius v. United States, 22 F. Cas. 1322; 5 Cranch C.C. 573 (1839). Impact The case has been cited by proponents of Jury nullification because the jury was allowed to decide an issue of law Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past Court cases either in special series of books called reporters Impact The case has been cited by proponents of Jury nullification because the jury was allowed to decide an issue of law Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past Court cases either in special series of books called reporters
  19. ^ Games v. Stiles ex dem Dunn
  20. ^ ". . . the court can also attempt to prevent such an occurrence of juror nullification by (1) informing prospective jurors at the outset that jurors have no authority to disregard the law and (2) obtaining their assurance that they will not do so if chosen to serve on the jury. " People v. Estrada, 141 Cal. App. 4th 408 (July 14, 2006. No. C047785).
  21. ^ U. S. vs Moylan, 417 F 2d 1002, 1006 (1969). [2]
  22. ^ U.S. v Dougherty
  23. ^ U. S. v. Krzyske
  24. ^ U.S. v. Thomas No. 95-1337 (2nd Cir. 5-20-97).

History of Trial by Jury, William Forsyth. (1875)

External links

Dictionary

jury nullification

-noun

  1. (law) an acquittal by a jury of a defendant ignoring the facts of the case and/or the law.
© 2009 citizendia.org; parts available under the terms of GNU Free Documentation License, from http://en.wikipedia.org
 Dapyx Software network: MP3 Explorer | Ebook Manager | Zenithic