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
A Jury can vote “not guilty” for any reason they deem fit. They are not obligated to make a decision based only on the law and facts — no matter what the judge might say.
Ultimately, the jury is charged with determining whether or not an individual is guilty of a crime, not if they are merely guilty of breaking the law. If the jury feels a law is unjust, they can render a not guilty verdict.
This has both good and bad implications. A good implication is if a jury feels that a law or the associated punishment is unjust, they can just return a not guilty verdict. For example, a law making it illegal to defend yourself from a rapist, or a death sentence for petty theft.
A bad implication is that the jury may feel a law is unjust even if its not. For example, lots of crimes against black people were nullified by racist juries during Jim Crow — and these kinds of things still happen today.
Juries are the ultimate arbiter of justice in our (U.S.) legal system. This serves as a check on government overreach, but does not always result in the just outcome. On balance, it is necessary.
Latest Answers