Jury Nullification

TommyK

Hello:

I was thinking that the following might be of interest to some of you:

I received an e-mail from a friend a while back about "Jury Nullification" not long after the Padraig Nally case was first reported in the media.

One noteworthy part of the e-mail concening "Bushell's Case" is also mentioned on the Irish Student Law Review website at www.islr.ie/Reviews/1999/nullification.php where it's described as "the recognition of the power of the jury to find the defendant not guilty, even if the evidence of guilt is overwhelming or conclusive."

Anyway, here's the e-mail:

******

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jury Nullification
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What Is Jury Nullification?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Jury nullification occurs when a Jury returns a verdict of "Not Guilty", despite its belief that the defendant is actually guilty of the violation charged.

The Jury, in effect, nullifies a law that it believes is either immoral, or wrongly applied, to the defendant whose fate they are charged with deciding.

When & Where Has Jury Nullification Been Practiced?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The most famous nullification case of all is the 1735 trial in America of John Peter Zenger, charged with printing seditious libels of the Governor of the Colony of New York, William Cosby.

Despite the fact that Zenger clearly printed the alleged libels, the only issue the court said the Jury was open to decide as the truth or falsity of the statements was ruled to be irrelevant, the Jury returned with a verdict of "Not Guilty."

Jury nullification appeared at other times in American history when the government has tried to enforce morally repugnant or unpopular laws.

In the early 1800s, nullification was practiced in cases brought under the Alien and Sedition Act.

In the mid 1800s, northern Juries practiced nullification in prosecutions brought against individuals accused of harbouring slaves in violation of the Fugitive Slave Laws.

And in the Prohibition Era of the 1930s, many Juries practiced nullification in prosecutions brought against individuals accused of violating alcohol control laws.

Can Juries Nullify In Ireland?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yes, Juries certainly have the power to nullify: Once a Jury returns a verdict of "Not Guilty," that verdict cannot be questioned.

That power is also supported by a little known precedent called Bushell's Case, a 17th. Century judgement that established the right of an Irish Jury to decide cases according to their convictions, and not merely according to the
Judge's direction.

This case is something of an open secret; the Judge's never mention it to the Jury.

Under it, the Jury can decide as they damn well please. The have the right to judge both the facts and the law itself.

Bushell's case allows the Jury to place 'the conscience of the community' between the defendant and the letter of the law.

What Aren't Jurors Told They Can Nullify?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Judges instruct jurors that it is their duty to apply the law as it is given to them; they don't tell them they can nullify if they don't agree with the law being applied.

Any Juror that does know about their power to nullify has had to discover that from their own research. Those that don't know are misled into thinking they must apply the law exactly as it is given.

It is deeply unfair to have a defendant's fate depend upon whether he is lucky enough to have a Jury that knows it has the power to nullify.

Some Judges think that informing Jurors of their power to nullify will lead to Jury anarchy, with Jurors following their own sympathies. They suggest that informing of the power to nullify will increase the number of hung Juries.

Why Should I Care?
~~~~~~~~~~~~

Jury nullification provides an important mechanism for feedback. Jurors sometimes use nullification to send messages to prosecutors about misplaced enforcement priorities or what they see as harassing or abusive prosecutions.

Jury nullification prevents our criminal justice system from becoming too rigid-it provides some play in the joints for justice, if jurors use their power wisely.

What Can I Do?
~~~~~~~~~~

Firstly, if you're ever selected for Jury service, demand to be informed of your right to nullify.

Secondly, if a member of your family or one of your friends is accused of violating an unjust or immoral law, demand that the Jury be informed of its right to nullify.

Lastly, forward this to everyone you know.

Hotblack Desiato

I've served on a jury. I know that you have the power to say not guilty whatever the facts of the case, and no-one can force you to change your mind. Not that the judge or prosecution would ever remind you of this, but that's to be expected. I can assure you that in my limited experience, juries do conduct a very thorough examination of the facts but also consider what is "right" as well as what is legally right.

I think I heard once about a few minor cannabis possession cases in the UK where juries refused to convict. Though I'd imagine these would usually just go before magistrates?

Sangre

How do American cases and a 17th case from British ruled Ireland effect our current precedent? Very, very little.
These cases do not establish a right under Irish law. Something of this importance would need to be dealt with under legislation or the High/Supreme Court because if it was ever brought up at trial you can be sure it would be appealed to the higher courts for a verdict.

Victor

Actually a much better case would be the Eureka Stockade.

However, I don't see what is special about the Nally case, especially after the jury gave it's verdict. Are you proposing that the jury be second guessed? That they should be blackmailed into thinking the made the wrong decision.

The law as it stands is just. If you kill someone you will be investigated. If you kill someone wrongly you will be convicted. If you plan to kill someone, then that is all the worse, that brings it closer to murder than manslaughter.

The law as it stands is just, maybe, just maybe it neededs some modificaiton around the edges. It is not unfair, but most certainly it is not oppressive.

ninja900 wrote:

Not that the judge or prosecution would ever remind you of this, but that's to be expected.

It's hardly the prosecutions job to raise it, is it?

J.R.HARTLEY

would this be the basis for the decision in the michael crichton book a time to kill, where a man is found not guilty of murder despite gunning down the two men who murdered and raped his young daughter in the courthouse

pete

J.R.HARTLEY wrote:

would this be the basis for the decision in the michael crichton book a time to kill, where a man is found not guilty of murder despite gunning down the two men who murdered and raped his young daughter in the courthouse

way to ruin the book, dude.

Blackjack

pete wrote:

way to ruin the book, dude.

and a film starring Samuel L Jackson, Sandra Bullock, Brenda Fricker, Keifer Sutherland, Matthew McConnaghey and a few others.

Victor

It's been a while since I saw the film and I didn't actually see the start of it.

As I understand it the defence is the film / book was that the revenge was justified / proportionate, the revenger wasn't in the full possession of his faculties and while reprehensible, the revenge was not something the jury would hold against the revenger.

However, in comparing this to the Nally case, Nallys concern was about an unsuccessful burglary - not rape / murder.

Nally planned in advance to shoot any propsective trespassers - not a matter of being traumatised after the murder of his daughter.

Nally shot and beat his victim, stopped, went back, reloaded and returned to finish off his victim. Was he so out of his senses that he didn't know when to stop.

Jackz

The judge in the Nally case told the Jury that they could not find this man "not guilty".