Here's a brief history of jury nullification -- the ultimate bastion of democracy. You should read up on it for when you serve on a jury and are called upon to enforce what you believe to be an unjust law. In short: you can vote to acquit no matter what anyone tells you.
(HT: either Mister District Attorney or CrimLaw, I forget.)
You can also vote to acquit because you think the D.A. is an asshole, or because you think it should be legal for retired football heros to stalk and murder their ex-wives.
That doesn't mean it's a good idea.
X: But it doesn't mean it's a bad idea either.
Michael,
You're being kind of silly, I think.
Several years ago I served on a Texas worker's comp case jury. My own belief was that the law provided for compensation beyond justification, but I thought I had a duty to decide the facts in accordance with the law.
JT: Then you were misinformed by the judge, likely on purpose. Juries are the ultimate arbiters of law, and a juror has a moral responsibility to not enforce an unjust law.
Michael,
You are misinformed. Under our system, the jury finds facts, but the judge is the arbiter of the law. What you are proposing is a form of anarchy or mob rule.
No, Joel, *you* are wrong. Go read up on jury nullification and you'll see.
Oh, I accidentally deleted a sentence I meant to keep. The jury is not only the final arbiter of the law, they are the final arbiter of justice. Jurors have the right (sadly, judges and laywers will lie and say they don't) to refuse to convict someone for breaking a law, if they feel that law isn't moral.
Google the term and, as I said, do some reading.
Coincidentally, I just read this report, about Dan's previous Rathergate-like situation: not the first time. What caught my eye was the following tie-in to this topic:
The Supreme Court of the United States has upheld the notion that juries are not the arbiters of the law but must apply the law to the facts as both exist. We don't have to agree with the Supreme Court, but if we are going to ignore that Court, we might as well have our gunpowder fresh.
Very interesting, Michael. I don't remember the name of the fellow in question here, but a man recently underwent trial for failure to withold taxes from his employees payroll. Actually, I think his name was Richard Simikan.
He did so convinced that the law did not require this. He was certain that if it went to trial, he would then have the opportunity to present evidence, and perhaps secure a victory in showing that tax laws (in his view) were being missapplied.
At trial, the judge instructed the jury that if the evidence showed he was guilty of not witholding, they had a duty to convict. One by one, the jury members asked for evidence that would demonstrate that not witholding was indeed illegal.
The judge said that this was already decided as a matter of law, and refused to supply them with any evidence. He insisted that their only job was to find him guilty if the prosecution proved that he had not withheld. The jury countered that it was their job to decide if he had broken any laws, and again requested hard evidence that would show his actions to be illegal.
Their request was ignored, and they were again admonished to return a guilty verdict based on whether or not the prosecution proved he didn't withold.
I grow wary of a legal system in which a judge determines guilt or innocence and a jury is used only as puppets on a string. Whether or not he was guilty is irrelevant to me. What is important to me, is that the jury did not get an opportunity to decide that for themselves.
JT: The weight of the evidence is against you on this one.
RC: Thanks for the pointer to the Dan Rather case, that's interesting.
JP: I'd love more information on the case you've described. I did a search on the name, but perhaps it's misspelled? "Simikan" came up with a couple of promising hits, but little info, and based on the scarcity I think the pages that did turn up have it misspelled as well.
I don't dispute that jurors have the power of jury nullification. I'm arguing that it isn't clearly a right. (My understanding is that a criminal verdict of not guilty can't be overturned even if there is proof of jury tampering or bribery. The jurors can be charged with misconduct but the verdict will stand.) Can one imagine any judge in his or her right mind giving the following instruction to the jury:
"You have the right to ignore the law and acquit on any basis you see fit."
Sparf vs. United States would seem to place some limits on the idea of jury nullification.
For my own view for example, I'm opposed to the possession of marijuana being illegal. However, I'm not going to agree to serve on a jury that says it will uphold the law and then turn around and ignore the law.
The O.J. Simpson jurors clearly had the power to acquit, but I don't agree that they carried out their legal duties insofar as they engaged in jury nullification.
I probably disagree with Joel more often than I agree with him, but in this case there's only one right answer and he's got it. Judges rule on the law, juries on the facts. If Joel and his fellow jurors had returned a verdict based on what they thought the workers' comp law "should" do rather than what it does, that verdict would have been reversible on appeal, or even by the judge himself without the need for an appeal. The same would hold for a criminal verdict, if a jury convicted a defendant of conduct that "should" be illegal, but isn't.
The case where a known, provable jury nullification cannot be reversed is a criminal acquittal, and that's only because of the double jeopardy clause, not because the jurors had a "right" to do what they did. It's a bug, not a feature.
X: I disagree, I think it's a valuable feature, and an essential building block of democracy. The founding fathers agreed, for whatever that's worth. Jury nullification was crucial in the thwarting of fugitive slave laws in the 19th century, and in the reversal of Prohibition in the 20th. Juries are the most visceral representation of the will of the people, and there's a reason why courts can't overturn jury verdicts.
X and Joel, if you guys actually do the web searching, you'll find you're wrong. As recently as the middle of last century, judges routinely told juries they were to judge the law as well as the facts. The founding fathers explicitly mentioned it, and....aw, heck, I'll do a little of your work for you.
'As recently as 1972, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said that the jury has an " unreviewable and irreversible power... to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge.... (US vs Dougherty, 473 F 2d 1113, 1139 (1972))' (From http://www.caught.net/juror.htm)
On that same page, search for "Jurors Must Know Their Rights:" and read the next 3 or 4 paragraphs.
Farther down: "Meanwhile, out in Nevada, a 50-year-old florist and grandmother almost landed in prison for her efforts to help spread the word to jurors. When her son went on trial for drug charges in federal court, Yvonne Regas and a friend papered the windshields of nearby parked cars, hoping to let the jurors learn the completely unexpected fact that her son faced 450 years in prison for a single drug transaction nine years earlier. Federal authorities charged her with jury tampering and obstruction of justice, but eventually dropped the charges. Presumably, they gave up hope of figuring out how they could get jurors to convict her without showing them the contents of the pamphlets she had been distributing--and then her jury would know the truth about nullification."
Farther down: "First, it is reflected in the Sixth Amendment, which grants the accused an inviolable right to a jury determination of his guilt or innocence in all criminal prosecutions for serious offenses. Because of this right, a trial judge absolutely cannot direct a verdict in favor of the State or set aside a jury's verdict of not guilty, "no matter how overwhelming the evidence." Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 277 (1993). Any violation of this rule is automatically reversible error without regard to the evidence of guilt. Id. Indeed, the point is so well settled that it was announced without dissent in Sullivan by a Court that has been unanimous on only a few constitutional questions in the past ten years."
Another URL: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/zenger/nullification.html, which has more than I want to excerpt, except this: 'Early in our history, judges often informed jurors of their nullification right. For example, our first Chief Justice, John Jay, told jurors: "You have a right to take upon yourselves to judge [both the facts and law]."'
Yes, the power probably has been abused. So? Everything else has. Somewhere on the FIJA site, I can't find it at the moment, are quotes from the founding fathers.
Except that they can, and frequently do, affording substantial deference to their findings of fact, and none whatsoever to their interpretation of the law. Other than that, your position is exactly correct.
Xrlq: They can modify a jury finding, to a degree, but they can't overturn a finding. They can sit it aside and consider something else, but usually that means that the case is remanded, or sent back for a new trial. I'm not aware of any cases where an appeals court has reversed a jury finding itself, just the judge's interpretation of that finding.
Sure they can. The only thing a court can't overturn is a criminal acquittal, whether it's based on a factual conclusion, an amateur legal opinion, the fact that the entire jury was stoned on heroin, or anything else. Jury verdicts get overruled all the time, either by the judge, who issues a JNOV, or by an appellate court if he doesn't. If the basis of the appeal is that the jury took Michael's crackpot advice and interpreted the law wrong, the verdict (or, more technically, the judgment based upon it) is reviewed de novo. If the basis of the appeal is that the jury got the facts wrong, the verdict is still reviewable, but under a much tougher "clearly erroneous" standard.
The only jury ruling a judge or an appellate court can never overturn is a criminal acquittal. This would not be the case if juries were supposed to rule on the law.
X: I see your point, and I agree that you're right. Criminal acquittals and convictions are pretty much the most important things that our justice system does, however.