The concept of jury nullification is not one that is broadly known or spoken about in the discipline of law. This is because until more recent years the concept was considered a complex subject that garnered plenty of conversation and debate. To understand the controversy that surrounds this particular area of the law, a definition of jury nullification is in order. It is known that the jury’s role is to act as the unbiased and impartial voice of judgment during the proceedings of a court case. They are required to listen to all sides of the story, examine all facts presented, and are ultimately responsible for reaching a verdict of either guilty or not guilty. The concept of jury nullification arises when a jury decides to deliberately deem …show more content…
Juries are given the power to serve justice in shades of gray, as opposed to just black and white. Jury nullification is often used when a jury believes that finding the defendant guilty will be unjust, as the sentencing will not fit the unique circumstances surrounding the particular case. As a means to protect the rights of the defendant, the jury declares them not guilty to avoid an unfair sentencing. To elaborate how this would manifest, an example is fitting. In the case of Darrell v. State of New Hampshire, Darrell Douglas, a practicing Rastafarian man, was arrested and charged with growing fifteen marijuana plants in his backyard. In plain black and white terms, Darrell Douglas was guilty of breaking the law. However, in the gray area of the law, he was a religious man who used marijuana for religious and medical purposes. As a result, the jury unanimously chose to nullify the case and deemed him “not guilty.” The jury strongly felt that although Darrell Douglas was in fact guilty of an actual crime, he did not deserve the punishment that would result in him being …show more content…
This is often because judges disallow the mention of jury nullification in their courtrooms. This is because some judges and other actioners of the law find the concept to be “a gut-punch to Democracy” and an “invitation to anarchy”. The concept is thought to be a violation of the justice system, and, as a result, some judges choose to execute their right to not inform the jury of their right to nullification. Often, jurors find out about jury nullification through their own research or prior knowledge of the practice. The concept of jury nullification is also gaining a lot of traction in modern media. In a recent case on the popular law-centric TV show How To Get Away With Murder, the lead character, criminal defense lawyer Annalise Keating, shed some light on the practice of jury nullification. During a case in which a son was being tried for the murder of his cop father who was abusing his mother, Annalise chose to heed the suggestion of one of her student assistants and decided to leak the information of the jury’s right to nullify the case. This, in turn, resulted in the defendant being found “not guilty” by the sympathetic jury, who felt that although the son had committed murder and was without a doubt guilty of committing said crime, he did not deserve to be punished for it. This particular case was extremely sensitive, and the jurors’ verdict acknowledged the emotional intricacies
Jury nullification occurs when a jury returns a verdict of "Not Guilty" despite its belief that the defendant is guilty of the violation charged, according to Doug Linder. The jury will nullify a law because it believes that it wrongly applies to the particular defendant. Is this right or wrong? Should a jury have the right to override the law? Juries have the power to nullify a law, but do they have the right to?
After reading the Chapter 5 and 6 it is evident that racism is present throughout the court system. Although the racism is generally paired with law enforcement, the court system has a major issue as well; especially when looking at the jury selection process. When thinking about the court process the jury selection does not really become an issue or brought to the public's attention unless it is a major case. The U.S. Supreme Court has also stated the jury is "an inestimable safeguard against the corrupt or overzealous prosecutor and against the compliant, biased, or eccentric judge" (Pp. 255.) The jury plays a vital role in the criminal justice system.
Opponents to the high use of this procedure cite the issue that it removes the public and the jury from the justice system, it is based on coercion, and it understates true crime statistics when criminals plead guilty to lesser crimes. Additionally, innocent people may plead guilty from fear they will be convicted by a jury and face a long jail sentence. (Barkan and Bryjack, Page 250-252)
Ewell v. Robinson, The Rape Case that Rocked the Nation By: Hailey Ellwanger After hours of jury deliberation, the case of Ewell v. Robinson has reached its conclusion. The jury finding the defendant Tom Robinson guilty of raping Mayella Ewell. This case is a prime example of the injustice that can occur when juries listen to their prejudices instead of the evidence. The two different sides of the story vastly differ, the jury ruling in favor of the Ewell’s.
Juries are selected at random from the community, ensuring that the trial is not biased towards any particular group or individual. The use of juries in the legal system provides a system of checks and balances. “Of course trial by Jury is one of our sacred cows.” (Document B) The jury acts as a counterbalance to the power of judges and prosecutors, ensuring that no one person or group has too much influence over the outcome of the case.
One of the most important benefits, however, is the reduced risk of a compromise verdict. The overall benefit of majority verdicts suit the circumstances for all but the commonwealth laws. (Knox 2002) “When a lone ratbag juror can abort a trial, the time-honoured idea of the unanimous verdict starts to look decidedly unsound.” In the book ‘Secrets of the Jury Room’ Knox broadcasts the ideals of jurors acting selflessly and complains about rogue jurors messing up a trial.
There are .58% of criminal cases that get sent to trial by jury (Doc A). This evidence helps explain why jury trials should not still be an option because even though you might have a better chance with trial by jury but on a very small percentage of people actually are able to get tried by jury's. This pretty much means that you don't really have a trial by jury because of how many people won't get the chance for trial by
A flawed jury is what makes for an unfair trial. Juries are a crucial piece of the puzzle which helps create the system we have today, one where it needs to be represented in the right way that makes the justice system an improved one. The judicial system is one where the jury needs to accurately represent the community that the accused resides in, achieving this can impact the community first hand, make it easier to protect the defendant from unfair sentencing, and promote public confidence in the justice system which is what lots of people distrust and lack in. The citizens in a community are the ones that get impacted from the actions of accused in the first hand which is why they need to be accurately shown in the jury.
Jury nullification is a finding by a trial jury in contradiction to the jury's belief about the facts of the case, which occurs during a trial when jurors acquit a defendant, even though the jurors may believe the defendant to be guilty of the charges. (Legal IQ, 2017) Jurors have an obligation to follow the law, as interpreted by the trial judge when rendering a verdict; therefore, judges instruct jurors in this obligation. (Hall, 2014) However, “a defendant has no right to insist that a jury is instructed that it has the authority to nullify the law” (Hall, 2014, p. 577).
Citizen Required To Serve? Jury a group of citizens sworn to give a verdict in a legal case on the basis of evidence submitted to them in court. Being able to serve on a jury is an absolute privilege to do for some and one thing that makes this country very different and unique from others. Serving on a jury should not be required for citizens. Some people believe serving on a jury should be a requirement for every citizen.
Imagine getting that one dreaded letter in the mail, calling you to do the one thing you didn’t plan the week before your wedding, JURY DUTY. Reginald Rose wrote the play Twelve Angry Men for a television drama after he sat on a jury. The characters in this play are identified not by names but by numbers. Twelve men are confined to a deliberation room after the trial of a 19-year-old boy accused of stabbing and killing his father. Twelve Angry Men illustrates the many dangers of the jury system like, a biased jury, being left with questions, and feeling inconvenienced by jury duty.
12 Angry Men Interview Interview script: Juror No. 8 [The interviewer stands and greets Juror No. 8. He takes off his coat and sits down.] Interviewer: [smiling gently] Hello No. 8, how are you?
A group of juror comprising of 12 men from diverse backgrounds began their early deliberations with 11 of ‘guilty’ and 1 of ‘not guilty’ verdicts. Juror 8 portrayed himself as a charismatic and high self-confident architect. Initially, Juror 1 who played the foreman positioned himself as self-appointed leader of the team in which has led his authority to be challenged as his leadership style lacked in drive and weak. In the contrary, Juror 8 is seen as the emergent leader considering his openness to probing conversations while remaining calm. Implying this openness to the present, it has become crucial that a good decision relies on knowledge, experience, thorough analysis and most importantly critical thinking.
12 Angry Men:-Psychological Behaviour Analysis Signs Of attributions There were many examples of attribution errors and biases in the movie. For example (an actor observer bias) the kid (Victim) is known to have yelled "I'm going to kill you" on the night of the murder. Cobb says no one would threaten to kill anyone unless he mean it (internal attribution)(0:46:25)&(0:46:45) .But after some time Fonda involves cobb into some argument and indirectly makes him yell "I'll kill you".
Jury systems exist all around the world. Many have a long history, while others are just emerging. Juries of different countries examine trials and decide on many factors in a court case. They play a vital role in court and are the deciding factor about whether a victim is guilty or not. The role of a jury may be different depending on the country.