Talk:Jury nullification/Archive 1

Copyvio? Jury nullification is a copy from (search for "In November"). It's a word for word copy. Now, I don't know for sure if User:Nathanlarson32767 authored the caught.net page or if the caught.net page copied wikipedia, but the modification date given for the caught.net page is "07/03/04 03:07:40" which is 4 months before Nathanlarson32767 added the text. Cburnett 09:22, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Response: I deleted the disputed text, seeing that there is already John Peter Zenger in the database. I would assume Nathanlarson32767 is free to wipe away these notes if he agrees to this edit. DouglasHeld 22:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd argue that this page isn't truly NPOV. The legitimacy of this legal maneuver is in serious question. Language such as "a jury's right to deliver a not-guilty verdict" and "is therefore preserved in those legal systems derived from [English common law]" are definitely not views shared by all. In fact, those are almost certainly minority views on this somewhat inflammatory issue. It would be nice to see a mention of the fact that many legal experts find this to be an end-run around law instead of a "jury's right", historical exceptions notwithstanding. Patrick Corcoran 22:31, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Do you have citations of cases where it is ruled that Jury Nullification is not legally permitted? If not, can you cite any "legal expert" opinions on why they think it is illegal? RJII 22:37, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Every jury in a criminal case has the right to engage in jury nullification by virtue of the fact that a jury has the right to acquit a defendant for any reason, or no reason at all. The fact that convicting someone of a crime requires the unanimous consent of 12 people who have the power to practice jury nullification is what makes trial by jury an effective check on government power. Jury nullification deserves a Wikipedia entry, as does any significant part of the Constitution’s system of checks and balances. For instance, there are Wikipedia entries for “pocket veto,” “filibuster” (which isn’t specifically mentioned in the Constitution), and “judicial review.” If it were really “an end run around the law,” it wouldn’t be part of Article III, Sec. 2 and the 6th Amendment, which is part of the law of the land. Besides being a questionable conclusion, the claim that “most legal experts see this as an end-run around the law” would still not impugn the validity of having a Wikipedia entry. After all, there are entries for judicial activism (arguably an abuse of power, but nevertheless a judge’s prerogative under the Constitution) and lobbying (which in practice involves the implicit offer of payment in return for the legislative behavior the lobbyist’s client is seeking). It was not until the 1840s that some states began to change jury instructions in such a way that judges would tell jurors they may not judge the law. Sparf v. United States, 156 U.S. 51 (1895) came very soon after Federal jury instructions were changed. I’d urge anyone who doubts that jury nullification has a long history to go ahead and read both the majority opinion (holding the change in jury instructions Constitutional) and Justice Gray’s dissent. You’ll also see no clear indication that the trial judge made an attempt to get likely nullifiers off the jury. Although details always vary from one case to another, there was an increasing trend during the late 19th and early 20th Centuries toward courts being more willing to sustain cause challenges by prosecutors intended to remove likely nullifiers. Peremptory challenges are another mechanism Virginia allows up to 4 for each party in a noncapital criminal case, which these days is thought of as a small number. In most states, prosecutors can now, under certain circumstances, have jurors removed during deliberations, which wasn’t true at the time the Bill of Rights was written. Although the Zenger case was a famous use of Jury nullification, it didn’t give rise to the doctrine of jury nullification. There have only been 2 instances in the US of jury verdicts being considered when holding one of the jurors in contempt of court. In one case the juror was likely to have a vested financial interest in an acquittal, but had said otherwise during jury selection. In the other case, in 1996, Laura Kriho, a juror in an LSD related case, was fined for criminal contempt after she had said during jury selection that she had never been convicted of a drug related crime (which she had) and that there was no reason she would be unable to judge the case impartially. The contempt was overturned on appeal. Josh Dunn 12:53, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

- Josh Dunn writes: If it were really “an end run around the law,” it wouldn’t be part of Article III, Sec. 2 and the 6th Amendment.

I am not a lawyer, but in my personal opinion, those documents don't support jury nullification.

From http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment06/ :

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

From http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article03/ :

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed. DouglasHeld 21:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

- I am not a legal professional at all but even I feel that this page is not NPOV. It basically defines Jury Nullifcation (JN) in the first two paragraphs. This part is okay. Then goes on to give a two historical examples of JN. Finally it ends with a positive review of the concept and promotes its use. Although I don't disagree that wikipedia should have a JN article. In my opinion I believe that it should be more detailed in the ideas behind JN, its pros and cons, its proponents and detractors, and finally one or two examples. --Shawn

I went ahead and removed the following text, which doesn't seem to be well supported in the article, this page or the external links: 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... DouglasHeld 22:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Lilburne & Nullification
I will try to flesh out 16th century history, because this did not start with the Quakers. Tribune 04:47, 9 August 2005 (UTC) oh. (Turns out, "Honest John" became a Quaker at the end). Someone expert in English Civil War or history of common law, which all must agree I am not, should revise what I will write. I am citing a secondary source translated from German, so there ought to be better in English. I do want to clean up on that standard FIJA story: I do not know, exactly, what the 1670 case means in the history of things; only that it does NOT mean the first instance of jury nullification. Tribune 22:49, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Double jeopardy
I have put this into the article. Am I correct in doing so? --max rspct 19:04, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I took out the line about being supported by many supreme court decisions because it's not fitting of a neutral article. it doesn't really give information, but just argues. what is many? which are they? in the context, it's not even clear HOW the application of jury nullification was supported. i'm actually in support of the idea of JN, I just want this article to be better and more appropriate to an encyclopedia.