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
Basically, a jury has final say on whether someone is convicted of a crime. But they are not able to be punished based on their decision.
Normally, a jury is meant to look at evidence, look at the laws, and decide based on that. But the jury doesn’t have to do it that way. The “jury” can “nullify” the law as they see fit.
If all evidence says you did the crime, but the jury doesn’t feel you deserve to be punished for it, you’re off scot free. If all the evidence says you didn’t do the crime, but the jury hates your guts, they can just decide you’re guilty regardless.
On one hand, this is a good feature of the law. It means that if a law is unjust, the people can ignore it without repercussions. On the other, this is a very dangerous feature. It means that if the jury itself is unjust (racist, sexist, etc.) the law can’t stop them.
This is why court is treated like a performance, and why image is everything. Even if you did everything right, if the jury thinks you’re a scum bag, you’re screwed.
Latest Answers