THE JURY'S POWER TO JUDGE THE LAW
In a criminal case, the judge and the jury have
very separate and distinct roles. Once a trial begins, it is the jury,
not the judge, that holds the greatest power and in whose hands a
conviction will either stand or fall. Essentially, the judge's sole
duties are to rule on the admissibility of evidence and to instruct the
jury on the laws relevant to the case. In contrast to the legal focus
of the judge's role, the jury is charged with: (1) determining "the
facts," and then (2) applying those facts to the law as given to them by
the judge.
However, what the jury is not told and what is intentionally hidden from them, is the fact that they -- the jury -- have a longstanding and well established right to judge "the law" itself.
Citizens have often opposed government efforts at social control by refusing to convict people charged under unjust criminal laws. For example, during the alcohol prohibition era in the 1920's and early 1930's, prosecutors had a very hard time winning convictions for alcohol-related crimes because many jurors believed that the alcohol prohibition was unjust and juries refused to convict those accused of alcohol trafficking. They judged the law itself and found it unjust. Similar circumstances also helped end the fugitive slave law, when juries refused to convict people assisting runaway slaves.
This same practice can still be used today against the government's overreaching drug laws.
The right of a jury to "nullify" a law is recognized in numerous court opinions. In fact, this power was purposely created to give the "citizenry" the ability to combat tyranny by rejecting unconscionable laws. For example, the Fourth Circuit has written:
"If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by a judge, and contrary to the evidence... 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. (United States v. Moylan [4th Cir. 1969] 417 F. 2d 1002)
Despite this concession, the 4th Circuit has nevertheless concluded that the jury should NOT be told of its power to completely reject the law. Therefore, if you are ever called as a juror you should know that you have a right to vote NOT GUILTY even if you believe the defendant committed the "crime." You can judges the law itself and refuse to lend your assistance to its implementation. A single juror voting not guilty is all that is required for a hung jury. You cannot be punished for exercising your right as a juror and refusing to convict the defendant of a crime you believe is unjust.
Remember, however, that although this right is well established, courts won't tell you about it. It is also considered misconduct for an attorney to inform the jurors of their power. Therefore, if you are the defendant in an unjust case, all you can do is hope that someone on the jury knows of their right to nullify laws and has the courage to exercise his or her power.
However, what the jury is not told and what is intentionally hidden from them, is the fact that they -- the jury -- have a longstanding and well established right to judge "the law" itself.
Citizens have often opposed government efforts at social control by refusing to convict people charged under unjust criminal laws. For example, during the alcohol prohibition era in the 1920's and early 1930's, prosecutors had a very hard time winning convictions for alcohol-related crimes because many jurors believed that the alcohol prohibition was unjust and juries refused to convict those accused of alcohol trafficking. They judged the law itself and found it unjust. Similar circumstances also helped end the fugitive slave law, when juries refused to convict people assisting runaway slaves.
This same practice can still be used today against the government's overreaching drug laws.
The right of a jury to "nullify" a law is recognized in numerous court opinions. In fact, this power was purposely created to give the "citizenry" the ability to combat tyranny by rejecting unconscionable laws. For example, the Fourth Circuit has written:
"If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by a judge, and contrary to the evidence... 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. (United States v. Moylan [4th Cir. 1969] 417 F. 2d 1002)
Despite this concession, the 4th Circuit has nevertheless concluded that the jury should NOT be told of its power to completely reject the law. Therefore, if you are ever called as a juror you should know that you have a right to vote NOT GUILTY even if you believe the defendant committed the "crime." You can judges the law itself and refuse to lend your assistance to its implementation. A single juror voting not guilty is all that is required for a hung jury. You cannot be punished for exercising your right as a juror and refusing to convict the defendant of a crime you believe is unjust.
Remember, however, that although this right is well established, courts won't tell you about it. It is also considered misconduct for an attorney to inform the jurors of their power. Therefore, if you are the defendant in an unjust case, all you can do is hope that someone on the jury knows of their right to nullify laws and has the courage to exercise his or her power.
