Jury Nullification: the Kaepernick of Juror Discretionary Powers

What is jury nullification?

According to Cornell Law School, jury nullification is when a jury, after hearing a case, purposefully rejects the evidence or refuses to apply the law for one of two main reasons: either to send a broad message about a social injustice or to reach justice for that particular defendant.

When should jury nullification be used?

The best time to use jury nullification as a juror is when the law orders you to condemn someone unjustly. When you listen to a case and the law demands an unjust result jury nullification should be employed. Some examples of an unjust result might be when the defendant had a moral or ethical justification for the crime, the sentence is unreasonably disproportionate to the crime, or grave and biased misconduct was used in gathering the evidence.

Why is jury nullification used with race?

A major use for jury nullification is when police misconduct occurs. When there is grave police misconduct, obvious racism, or a distinct lack of justification (such as an emergency in some instances), the jury can use jury nullification to reach a just result for the defendant despite the great weight of evidence. In this sense, jury nullification is a particularized remedy unique to each individual defendant.

What is jury nullification not for?

Jury nullification is more than a mere protest. It is the statement that this law, on its face, regardless of against whom it is applied, is unjust. A man’s trial is not the appropriate setting for a blanket protest, but it is the ideal setting and time to effectively ensure (or attempt to achieve) justice for the defendant. In other words, the purpose of jury nullification is to curb and deter wrongs such as police misconduct, or to seek a just result for the defendant, not to solely make a blanket political statement. So, one should use jury nullification in the application of a particular defendant for a particular crime, not as a generality. If a general statement of disapproval is needed against a law, which there inevitably will be at times, there are other avenues to employ (such as but not limited to): protesting, making sure your voice is heard during committee hearings when the law is enacted, voicing your concerns to congressmen and hounding them to repeal a law, or even filing a lawsuit.

But what alternatives are there in the juror context?

• Know the exclusionary rule: know when police-gathered evidence for a crime is allowed and not allowed.
• Assess the arguments of both sides and make sure you reach a just result for that particular defendant, not attempt to free all defendants in general.
• Know your avenues of redress, such as protesting a law, sharing your experience as a juror, contacting your representatives, and voicing your opinion.
• Do NOT use jury nullification simply because of similar backgrounds: Be aware of your biases and ensure that you use jury nullification as a juror to secure justice for the defendant, not only because you empathize with their character or background. As a juror, you must take the case with great seriousness, evaluate based on the facts, be aware of your biases, and then assess the case with as little prejudice as possible.