Prompt
Recount the history of jury nullification including statements made by the American founders as to its importance and highlighting where it has been used. Include a discussion of its evolution in modern jurisprudence and highlight any cases that have touched upon the concept itself providing a summary of the argument and the ultimate conclusions reached about the practice.
Response
History of Jury Nullification in the United StatesColonial Era and Early America:- Colonial Roots:
-
Bushel's Case (1670): An early and significant case in English law where a jury refused to convict William Penn and William Mead of unlawful assembly, despite the judge's instructions. This case established the right of juries to deliver a verdict according to their conscience and set a precedent that carried over to the American colonies.
-
John Peter Zenger Trial (1735): In colonial America, Zenger, a printer, was charged with seditious libel against the governor of New York. Despite the judge’s instructions, the jury acquitted Zenger, establishing an early American instance of jury nullification and setting a precedent for freedom of the press.
Founding Era:- Views of the Founders:
-
Thomas Jefferson: Strongly supported the role of juries in protecting citizens from government overreach. He viewed jury nullification as a crucial check on the judiciary and executive branches. Jefferson wrote, "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."
-
John Adams: Believed in the importance of juries. He asserted that jurors have the right to determine both the facts and the law in a case, emphasizing the jury’s role as a safeguard against potential tyranny. Adams famously said, "It is not only his right but his duty... to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court."
-
Alexander Hamilton: Defended the idea that juries should act according to their understanding of the law, as seen in his defense of John Peter Zenger. Hamilton's arguments during this trial underscored the jury's role in upholding justice even against judicial instructions.
Early Republic:- Federalist and Anti-Federalist Views:
-
Federalists: Generally supported the judiciary's authority but recognized the jury's importance as a check on government power. In Federalist No. 83, Hamilton highlighted the jury's role in criminal cases as a fundamental safeguard of liberty.
-
Anti-Federalists: Strong advocates for jury nullification, seeing it as a defense against oppressive laws. They feared a strong central government and viewed the jury as a crucial barrier to potential abuses of power.
19th Century:- Abolitionist Movement:
-
Fugitive Slave Act Cases: Northern juries often used nullification to acquit individuals accused of violating the Fugitive Slave Act, reflecting widespread moral opposition to the law. This period saw numerous instances of jury nullification as a form of protest against unjust laws.
-
Lysander Spooner: An abolitionist and legal theorist who argued that juries have the right and duty to judge the law itself. Spooner's writings, particularly "An Essay on the Trial by Jury" (1852), were influential in promoting the idea of jury nullification.
20th Century and Beyond:- Prohibition Era:
- During Prohibition, juries frequently nullified laws against alcohol consumption, contributing to the eventual repeal of Prohibition. This demonstrated the jury's role in expressing public dissent against unpopular legislation.
- Civil Rights Movement:
- Jury nullification played a role in the Civil Rights Movement, with some Southern juries acquitting defendants in racially charged cases, highlighting the complex interplay between jury nullification and social justice.
Modern Views and Legal Context:- Judicial and Legislative Responses:
-
Sparf v. United States (1895): The Supreme Court ruled that federal judges are not required to inform juries about their right to nullify, thus limiting the explicit acknowledgment of this power. The Court emphasized that juries are bound to apply the law as instructed by the judge, even if they personally believe the law to be unjust.
-
United States v. Dougherty (1972): The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the principle that juries do not need to be informed of their right to nullify. The court argued that informing juries about nullification could lead to anarchy and inconsistent application of the law.
Summary and Conclusions:Jury nullification has deep roots in American history, reflecting the jury's role as a check on governmental power and unjust laws. From the early colonial era through the founding period and into the modern age, jury nullification has been a contentious yet pivotal aspect of American legal tradition. The views of the Founders underscore its significance as a safeguard of liberty and justice. However, modern jurisprudence has generally restricted the practice by limiting the information available to juries about their right to nullify, reflecting concerns about consistency and the rule of law. Despite these restrictions, the concept of jury nullification remains a powerful testament to the role of juries in the American legal system.
Prompt
Outline significant cases related to Jury Nullification that have happened in the 20th and 21st centuries and its current status in American Jurisprudence.
Response
Significant Cases Related to Jury Nullification in the 20th and 21st Centuries1. Sparf v. United States (1895): -
Summary: This case addressed the issue of jury nullification directly, with the Supreme Court ruling that federal judges are not required to inform juries about their right to nullify laws.
-
Conclusion: The Court emphasized that juries must apply the law as instructed by the judge, effectively limiting the explicit acknowledgment of jury nullification rights.
2. United States v. Moylan (1969): -
Summary: In this case, anti-Vietnam War activists were charged with destruction of draft records. The defendants argued for their right to present a jury nullification defense.
-
Conclusion: The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the conviction, ruling that while juries have the power to nullify, defendants do not have the right to be informed of this power or to argue for it explicitly in court.
3. United States v. Dougherty (1972): -
Summary: Members of the "D.C. Nine" were convicted of vandalizing Dow Chemical offices as a protest against the Vietnam War. The defendants argued that the jury should be informed about their right to nullify.
-
Conclusion: The D.C. Circuit Court ruled that judges are not required to inform juries about their nullification power, stating that such instructions could lead to anarchy and undermine the legal system's consistency.
4. State v. Ragland (1986): -
Summary: This New Jersey Supreme Court case involved a defendant who argued that the jury should be instructed about its right to nullify.
-
Conclusion: The court held that while juries have the de facto power to nullify, there is no legal requirement for judges to inform them of this power.
5. United States v. Thomas (1997): -
Summary: A juror in a drug conspiracy case was dismissed for allegedly attempting to nullify the law.
-
Conclusion: The Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the juror's dismissal, reaffirming that while juries have the power to nullify, they must still follow the law as instructed by the judge.
Current Status in American Jurisprudence:Jury nullification remains a complex and somewhat controversial topic in modern American jurisprudence. The power of juries to nullify laws, while not officially sanctioned or promoted, continues to exist as a de facto practice. Key points regarding its current status include:
- Judicial Instructions:
- Judges are not required to inform juries about their right to nullify laws. Most courts follow the precedent set by cases such as Sparf v. United States and United States v. Dougherty, which discourage explicit instructions about nullification.
- Defense Arguments:
- Defense attorneys are generally prohibited from arguing for jury nullification directly. Attempts to do so can result in judicial reprimands or even mistrials.
- Juror Dismissals:
- Jurors suspected of attempting to nullify the law can be dismissed, as seen in United States v. Thomas. Courts maintain that jurors must adhere to the legal instructions provided by the judge.
- Public Awareness and Activism:
- Despite legal restrictions, public awareness campaigns and activist groups continue to promote the concept of jury nullification as a tool for social justice. Organizations like the Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA) work to educate the public about their rights as jurors.
- Legal Reforms:
- There is ongoing debate and some advocacy for legal reforms to more openly acknowledge and support the right of juries to nullify. However, such reforms face significant legal and political challenges.
Conclusion:While jury nullification has played a significant role in American legal history, its explicit acknowledgment and encouragement within the courtroom have been largely curtailed by modern jurisprudence. Courts have consistently ruled that juries have the power to nullify but should not be instructed or encouraged to do so. This balance reflects the ongoing tension between maintaining the rule of law and recognizing the jury's traditional role as a check on governmental power.