While most people argue whether jury nullification should
be allowed at all, the New Hampshire legislature has decided that juries can be
explicitly informed of their ability to nullify the law. In 2012, the Governor
of New Hampshire signed into law HB 146, which took effect in 2013. This new
law allows defense counsel in criminal trials to inform jurors of their right
to nullify the law.
Even though HB 146 was an unprecedented move, the New
Hampshire legislature is now considering moving toward an even stronger
position on jury nullification. In January of 2014, the New Hampshire
legislature introduced HB 1452, which requires the judge to instruct the jury
about jury nullification, instead of the defense counsel being the one who argues
to the jury that they can nullify the law, and allows for a mistrial if the
jury is not so instructed. The pattern jury instruction reads as follows:
The concept of jury
nullification is well established in this country. If the jury feels that the
law under which the defendant is accused is unjust, or that exigent
circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which
appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the
courts must abide by that decision.
HB 1452 has not been signed into law, and its future is
uncertain. But, considering New Hampshire’s willingness to pass HB 146, it is
very possible that judges in New Hampshire may soon be instructing jurors in all
criminal juries about their power to nullify the law.
The newly enacted law and proposed new law in New
Hampshire gives rise to the question of whether New Hampshire juries will use
their power responsibly. All criminal juries have the power to nullify, but
because most jurors are unaware of their ability to nullify, they often do not
use their power even when they would have liked to do so. New Hampshire is an
important test ground for jury nullification because never before has a judge instructed
jurors about their power to nullify the law as judges in New Hampshire may soon
be instructing jurors in criminal cases.
Because HB 1452 is still only a possibility, and HB 146
is so new, there is little data on how juries in New Hampshire have reacted to
their knowledge about their ability to nullify the law. To date, the highest
profile case to raise any issue about the new juror nullification law is the
appeal by Rich Paul, a marijuana activist convicted of selling drugs in 2013.
Rich Paul chose to have his defense counsel argue for
jury nullification in his trial for drug dealing. After building the central
theme of his case around his defense counsel arguing for jury nullification, the
trial judge refused to instruct the jurors on their right to decide the case
however they felt was right. There was clear proof that Paul had violated the
law and consequently Paul was convicted. He is currently appealing his
conviction and has appealed all the way to the New Hampshire Supreme Court because
he believes that judges should instruct the jury about nullification if his
counsel can inform the jury that it may do so. Paul argues that there is little
value to his counsel being able to argue for jury nullification if the judge
will not instruct the jurors that they may do so. After all, the jury is always
able to nullify, that is to ignore, the arguments made by a defense counsel,
simply by choosing to disbelieve whatever the defense counsel may say. However,
if a judge instructs the jury that a defense counsel’s argument for jury
nullification is valid under the law, then the jury will be much more inclined
to buy into jury nullification. There has not yet been a final ruling in Paul’s
case.
Even
though the lack of a judge’s instruction would not have been an issue in Paul’s
case had HB 1452 been signed into law at the time, Paul’s case does provide us
with an example of a jury possibly being unwilling to nullify the law unless
the judge instructs that the jury that it may do so, If the New Hampshire
legislature passes HB 1452, the results of this innovative law will be intensely
scrutinized by many state legislatures which may be considering similar laws.
No comments:
Post a Comment