I’ve bee watching the Brooks vs state trial, and before he makes his closing argument, the judge tells him NOT to inform the jury of their power to nullify the law.
In: 20
The Scots have a similar aquittal ruling called “[Not Proven](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_proven?wprov=sfti1)” Jury Nullification is similar but adds another layer.
A jury is expected to convict the accused if the state presents a case beyond reasonable doubt of the accused’s guilt of committing a crime.
In both US and Scotland, the Jury is expected to acquit if the defense presents reasonable doubt of guilt and if the state fails to make a case with the evidence to prove beyond the shadow of doubt of the accused innocence. That’s two acquittal states, under two names in Scotland and one in US, but US has a third acquittal.
Jury Nullification acquits the accused even if the state made a case beyond a shadow of a doubt because the Jury finds the crime and punishment to be unjust. The accused did it, but the jury let them off anyway, for one reason or another. Sometimes the jury doesn’t like the law, sometimes they don’t like the victim of the crime, and sometimes they don’t think the crime deserves punishment. In any case, for any reason, a jury can return a not guilty verdict regardless of evidence presented in trial.
Latest Answers