More handpicked essays just for you.
Strengths and weaknesses of jury nullification
Strengths and weaknesses of jury nullification
Critique the effectiveness of jury nullification in trial
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In 1895, in the United States v Sparf, the U.S. Supreme
Court voted 7 to 2 to uphold the conviction case in which the trial judge refused the defense attorney's request to let the jury know of their nullification power. (Linder, 2001). Jury nullification occurs when a jury returns a verdict of "Not
Guilty" despite its belief that the defendant is guilty of the violation charged. The jury in effect mollifies a law that it believes is either immoral or wrongly applied to the defendant whose fates that are charged with deciding. (Linder2001). In the
United States, a trial involves an essential division of labor between a judge and jury. The judge is the determiner of the law and the jurors are the sole judge of the facts presented in
…show more content…
The big question is does the jury have the right to nullification even if they know the defendant is guilty? This research paper will discuss the issues surrounding jury nullification.
There are some who still advocate jury nullification. They feel that the juror has the right to not convict if they feel that the law is unjust or at least unfair. They maintain that it is an important safeguard of last resort against wrongful imprisonment and government tyranny. Clearly there is a place for jury nullification in the US. There has been a long history of unfair laws and practices in the country and allowing the jury the power to overturn or nullify them is a good way to keep the government in check (Jones, 2004). Many people believe that jury nullifications are illegal and overly political. As court cases are become more highly politicized, having individuals who disagree with a law takes away the sense of justice, and can give one person the ability to influence the entire jury to acquit someone they know is guilty which undermines the law. They also view it as a risk to higher public officials, an acquittal for criminal case
…show more content…
Even this year there have been many acquittals in cases involving officers using deadly force, most notably against the black community. Almost in every case the officer was acquitted by nullification, and it starting to have a undesired effect on society as a whole.
Some black lawmakers have said that since a jury is representative of a community then jurors should have the right to decide which people, they will allow to live among them
(Butler, 1995). This implies that jurors exercise their power based on conscience and not based on the facts of the case. The belief here is that the laws are inherently unfair because they were created by and for white people (Butler, 1995). There have been cases where black jurors have used these same laws to free black people as a balance against the white community. One case showed how an African American drug dealer from Washington D.C. had tortured an eighteen year old to death in front of witnesses. With all the evidence pointing into the direction of a guilty decision, an all African American jury found the drug dealer not guilty of the crime. One of the jurors, Valerie
Blackmon was reported saying, "She didn't want to send any
In a Georgia Court, Timothy Foster was convicted of capital murder and penalized to death. During his trial, the State Court use peremptory challenges to strike all four black prospective jurors qualified to serve on the Jury. However, Foster argued that the use of these strikes was racially motivated, in violation of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U. S.79. That led his claim to be rejected by the trial court, and the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. The state courts rejected relief, and the Foster’s Batson claim had been adjudicated on direct appeal. Finally, his Batson claim had been failed by the court because it failed to show “any change in the facts sufficient to overcome”.
Paul Butler says in his article, “Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No”, “If you are ever on a jury in a marijuana case, I recommend that you vote ‘not guilty’…As a juror you have this power under the Bill of Rights; if you exercise it, you will become part of a proud tradition of American jurors who helped make our laws fairer.” This is in reference to jury nullification. It is an actual constitutional doctrine that is premised upon the idea that the jury (ordinary citizens), not government officials, should possess the final word on whether an individual should be punished. As Butler explains, jury nullification is for the most part a good thing. It was necessary to end prohibition, it has caused prosecutors over the years to change tactics when
Just Mercy’s Bryan Stevenson exposes some of these disparities woven around his presentation of the Walter McMillian case, and the overrepresentation of African-American men in our criminal justice system. His accounts of actors in the criminal justice system such as Judge Robert E. Lee and the D.A. Tom Chapman who refused to open up the case or provide support regardless of the overwhelmingly amount of inconsistencies found in the case. The fact that there were instances where policemen paid people off to testify falsely against McMillian others on death row significantly supports this perpetuation of racism. For many of the people of color featured in Stevenson’s book, the justice system was unfair to them wrongfully or excessively punishing them for crimes both violent and nonviolent compared to their white counterparts. Racism towards those of color has caused a “lack of concern and responsiveness by police, prosecutors, and victims’ services providers” and ultimately leads to the mass incarceration of this population (Stevenson, 2014, p. 141). Moreover the lack of diversity within the jury system and those in power plays into the already existing racism. African-American men are quickly becoming disenfranchised in our country through such racist biases leading to over 1/3 of this population “missing” from the overall American population because they are within the criminal justice
They weigh the evidence and apply the law. In the court system, criminal law is interpreted by a jury who are seen as expressing the sense of justice of ordinary men and women. Juries date back to the Middle Ages in England, and while membership, role, and importance have changed throughout the ages, they were part of the system of England’s Common Law. The purpose of the jury system was to ensure the civil rights of the ordinary citizen. It is important to remember that at the time, ordinary people had few rights.
In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Batson. The Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment forbids the prosecutor from challenging potential jurors solely on account of their race or on the assumption that black jurors as a group will be unable to consider the state’s case ag...
From the Ferguson, Missouri case of an officer “wrongfully” protecting himself to the Texas DWI case involving the father murdering the murderer of his sons, the media helps play a larger role on the scale to emphasize more attraction to the topic of the moment. With the increasing complexity and reach of the law, to nullify is to be a useful tool in a democratic society. However, a verdict should be based on the law as decided by the whole people, not the few who make up the jury of a particular case. Although judges and legal scholars take a variety of positions of the subject of jury nullification, the validity of the practice is said to follow logically from several aspects of our judicial system. In the general, judges are unwilling in most states to even inform juries the option of
In the United States, jury trials are an important part of our court system. We rely heavily on the jury to decide the fate of the accused. We don’t give a second thought to having a jury trial now, but they were not always the ‘norm’.
A study of race and jury trials in Florida published last year in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, found that “conviction rates for black and white defendants are similar when there is at least some representation of blacks in the jury pool.” But all-white juries are a very different story—they convict blacks 16% more often than they convict whites (2).
Bornstein, B. H., and E. Greene. "Jury Decision Making: Implications For and From Psychology." Current Directions in Psychological Science 20.1 (2011): 63-67. Print.
In several cases and studies, there is a substantial amount of racial bias in the criminal justice system. In fact, the 1978 McClesky conviction has proven to support Baldus’s study in 1998. Warren McClesky, an African American male, was found guilty of killing a Georgia police officer. The legal team who represented McClesky exposed a study that showed how biased racial inequality is in the death penalty, but the court contended the argument because “disparities in sentencing are an inevitable part of our criminal justice system” (Touré). Furthermore, race has always been a serious matter in the Supreme Court and other government administrations, but they fail to recognize the
Now that we have discussed the pretrial occurrences, we get into the trial portion of the court process. This is the portion of the process in which both the defense and the prosecution present their cases to the jury, the judge, and the rest of the courtroom. To select a jury, the bring in potential jurors and ask them questions,
The jury plays a crucial role in the courts of trial. They are an integral part in the Australian justice system. The jury system brings ordinary people into the courts everyday to judge whether a case is guilty or innocent. The role of the jury varies, depending on the different cases. In Australia, the court is ran by an adversary system. In this system “..individual litigants play a central part, initiating court action and largely determining the issues in dispute” (Ellis 2013, p. 133). In this essay I will be discussing the role of the jury system and how some believe the jury is one of the most important institutions in ensuring that Australia has an effective legal system, while others disagree. I will evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of a jury system.
A jury is a panel of citizens, selected randomly from the electoral role, whose job it is to determine guilt or innocence based on the evidence presented. The Jury Act 1977 (NSW) stipulates the purpose of juries and some of the legal aspects, such as verdicts and the right of the defence and prosecution to challenge jurors. The jury system is able to reflect the moral and ethical standards of society as members of the community ultimately decide whether the person is guilty or innocent. The creation of the Jury Amendment Act 2006 (NSW) enabled the criminal trial process to better represent the standards of society as it allowed majority verdicts of 11-1 or 10-2, which also allowed the courts to be more resource efficient. Majority verdicts still ensure that a just outcome is reached as they are only used if there is a hung jury and there has been considerable deliberation. However, the role of the media is often criticized in relation to ensuring that the jurors remain unbiased as highlighted in the media article “Independent Juries” (SMH, 2001), and the wide reporting of R v Gittany 2013 supports the arguments raised in the media article. Hence, the jury system is moderately effective in reflecting the moral and ethical standards of society, as it resource efficient and achieves just outcomes, but the influence of the media reduces the effectiveness.
It is important that each case is treated equally when carrying out justice to keep the United States a safe place, to form a nation with good education, and to teach people to judge right from wrong. However, sometimes rights are taken from the wrong people. Our legal system is creating a dangerous path for African Americans in our country because of its’ highest per capita incarceration rate, its’ favoritism towards those in power, and its failure to carry out justice to protect people from the dangerous acts of those who are defined as criminals. Was justice really served in the “State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman” case? Is our justice system fair to all races?
There is no greater example of government “of the people, by the people, for the people” than the right of trial by jury. The jury is a slice of The People—not mere representatives of The People, but literally The People—whose vital role was to be the ultimate finder of fact and of law. We agree that the right to