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 assumption is that violation of the law and guilt are the same thing. But they are not exactly. Jury might decide, yeah the dude totally did the deed but no he is not guilty because the law is stupid to begin with. And then you have a court precedent making the law unenforceable.
Theres cases where a defendant according to the law would be found guilty. But if it was done in say good faith or in self defence or something like that. Then the jury can decide that its simply not fair that someone who had no choice but to break the law should be punished. The laws are meant for when you do something wrong with intent. Not for circumstances that are not reasonable within your might.
Ive watched the entire Darrell Brooks case as he is quite famous in anti sovereign citizen communities.
He had some delusional idea that he could appeal to “Sure I ran my moms car into over 70 people and killed 8 or so of them… But IVE been hurting as well. Please feel sorry for me.”
In Wisconsin theres apparently no death penalty. But I guarantee you that the jury would have given him that if they had any ability to do that.
Even without him trying really really hard to provoke Dorrow so he could get a mistrial.
She did a perfect record on everything and that case is going to be used as teachings on how to act in court.
The judge wasnt stacked against Brooks. Facts were. I guess the “shaggy defense” dont really play well when the prosecutor can literally press play on a video and you see the defendant clearly sitting in his car as it runs into people. Brooks never gave any coherent defense. He tried going in various ways but never followed through. And most his questions had no defense value.
It is a consiquence of two other facts:
1. Double Jepordy: You can’t be tried for the same crime twice.
2. The Jury’s verdict is final. Their deliberations are not up for debate.
So if they come back with a not guilty verdict, despite all the evidence, the defendant gets off.
This video from CGP grey has really good information on this matter: https://youtu.be/uqH_Y1TupoQ?si=kHM-foAayR1JuwCU
A jury can technically return any verdict they damn well please, as long as it’s unanimous.
If the jury decides “sure, the defendant definitely committed the crime but *we don’t give a shit* and we’re going to return a unanimous ‘Not Guilty’ verdict anyway”, then they have *nullified* the consequences of that law.
Judges want juries to return the verdict that they “should” return, based on the evidence shown, and they do *not* want juries to just give any old verdict they like. So they absolutely positively do not want the juries to be told that they have that option.
Alright! Let’s break it down step by step:
1. Imagine a classroom where the teacher has rules.
2. Let’s say a student breaks a rule, like drawing during class.
3. The class votes if the student did it or not.
4. Even if everyone knows the student did it, they can vote “not guilty” if they think the rule is unfair.
5. This is like “Jury Nullification”. It’s when a jury thinks someone broke the law, but they vote “not guilty” because they believe the law isn’t right.
In addition to what has been mentioned already, there is a motion for judgment notwithstanding verdict (JNOV) that can be made, essentially asking the judge to overturn the jury’s decision on the basis that no reasonable jury could come to that conclusion. It is understandably a high burden to overcome.
It’s a conflict of 2 rules:
You can’t be tried twice for the same crime
The jury can’t be punished for a wrong verdict.
With those two rules the Jury can look at the case and say “this guy is definitely guilty but we don’t want to convict him as guilty so he’s officially not guilty”. The person doesn’t go to jail, and the jury isn’t punished, and that case can’t be revisited as the verdict is already decided
Can the judge say this?
A good example where jury nullification might have been a valid tactic is the case of [Ken McElroy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_McElroy)
McElroy was essentially the town bully, and vicious one at that. He apparently engaged in witness intimidation, and was never convicted on 20 cases for child abuse, cattle rustling, and theft. He was finally convicted of attempted murder after shooting the elderly town grocer, and continued to harass the populace while he appealed his conviction, coming into a bar with an M1 rifle and stating he may still kill the grocer.
The next day McElroy was shot in broad daylight on Main Street with two different weapons firing the shot in front of 30-40 witnesses. None of the townspeople came forward to say they saw who did it, the community was glad to be rid of McElroy.
Suppose a shooter was caught and put on trial for murdering McElroy. The jury might vote not guilty to use nullification as a way to say “Nah, we’re fine with the end result here. What’cha bringing to the potluck Sunday night?”
Another case where nullification might be used is suppose an underage couple 15.5F and 13M has consensual sex, and the girl’s father gets p.o.’ed, is an influential person around the town, and pushes the DA to pursue the guy for statutory rape. The jury, recognizing that the girl isn’t being equally charged when as the older one was probably more of the instigator of the act, might feel that the prosecution is unfair, and vote not guilty despite the evidence as a nullification to an unjust prosecution.
Latest Answers