The Super Power That Jurors Don't Know They Have

The Jurors Secret Power: Jury Nullification

Thousands of hours of debate have revolved around statutory application and how it may apply to a particular set of facts. Judges, lawyers, scholars, legislatures, and politicians are constantly arguing for adherence to their interpretation of the law. But these individuals are not the ones that hold the power. Unbeknown to most juries, it is the jurors that hold the trump card. They have the power to decide not only what the facts are and how the law should apply, but more shockingly they can freely choose whether they will follow the law at all. This secret power is known as jury nullification. Even if the jury believes the defendant to be guilty under the law, they can choose to render a verdict of 'not guilty'. Despite believing that the law dictates a guilty verdict, a jury can choose to nullify the law and essentially reject its mandate. Juries nullify laws that they believe to be unjust, immoral, or unwarranted for a sympathetic defendant by rendering a verdict that is contrary to the weight of the evidence. But why is this power so secret? And is it a power for good, or a power for evil? 

Why so secret?

Juries are told of their role as 'fact-finders,' and their duty to render a verdict of 'guilty' or 'not guilty' by applying those facts to the given law. They are also admonished not to research the law outside the given instructions. So if the trump card–jury nullification–is so powerful and legal then why are they not informed of it? Whether jury nullification is a fundamental right, natural right, or no right at all, has been a hot topic of debate. It is this controversy that often makes judges reluctant to allow nullification tips to the jury. Judges fear that informing juries of this right may lead to jury anarchy that is fueled by sympathy rather than fairness. They may or may not have the right to nullify, but what is not debatable is whether juries have the power to. The Constitution of the United States prohibits "double jeopardy," meaning that a defendant may not be retried for the same charge. So once a jury renders a verdict of 'not guilty' their job is completed and they cannot be punished for their verdict, even if it is deemed as improper. Here lies the subtle power of jury nullification. 

A power for good...?

While our judicial system on whole fears jury nullification, it is not actually creating new law, but rather it allows for juries to combat corruption of prosecutors or others that may be using the law in ways it wasn't intended. For example, jury nullification saved many abolitionists from the Fugitive Slave Act. Additionally, several argue that jury nullification serves as a feedback mechanism, and also prevents the "whims of the judge and legal maneuvering of the prosecution" to dictate the fate of the accused. The question then becomes who do we trust more to carry out justice; a representative jury or written laws that may become stagnant over time?

Or a power for evil?

Jury nullification serves as a "vital check on government power while simultaneously undermining the very premise of our adjudicative system." Many argue that the jury is not supposed to decide what the law should be, and furthermore should not be allowed to choose to depart from the law out of sympathy for a defendant or prejudice against the victim. The effects of this can be seen on a spectrum of severity. For example, juries may choose to nullify in drug cases because they believe in legalizing drugs. On the other end of the spectrum, we saw early southern juries consistently utilizing their nullification power by refusing to convict members of the Ku Klux Klan when it was proved that they murdered black civil rights activists. Subsequently, whether the jury likes the defendant can easily determine the verdict. This is troubling when we think about infamous serial killers like Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer, who were considered extremely likable and charming defendants.

Food for thought
Ultimately, this mostly untapped power of jury nullification will continue to be a topic of debate for our justice system. Whether this power should be encouraged or smothered is a question that yields wildly different opinions. This issue is complex and difficult to address because it's riddled with doubts about humanity, our justice system, the legislature, and other complex constitutional issues. But the simple truth is this: our juries hold much more power than they know.