Jury Nullification Quotes

If government is truly limited to being small and nearly irrelevant, there will be no incentive to “own” government. For this change to occur, the following will be required: a philosophical rejection of government waging war without consent, running people’s lives, and violating social or economic liberty; nullification of laws by public pressure or by state action; legalization of private alternatives to all government programs; prohibition of fraudulent money, private and government; peaceful civil disobedience; acceptance of responsibility to care for oneself and one’s family instead of relying on government or private theft; refusal to participate in government crimes through the military and tax system with full realization of the risks of practicing civil disobedience since government will not go away quietly; jury nullification of bad laws, especially with regard to taxes, drugs, and overregulation of social and voluntary activities; and acceptance that, while sins and vices may be a negative, they aren’t in themselves crimes and are not to be restricted by the state.

In the 20th century, it became more and more the norm for judges to incorrectly instruct juries that they must consider only the facts of the case and whether the defendant was guilty of breaking a law – not judge the law itself. Still, Jury Nullification survived, barely, much diminished, in prohibition cases, anti-Vietnam War cases, civil rights cases (Martin Luther King, for example, quoted St. Augustine in saying an unjust law is no law at all), and drug cases. Only now is there a small but growing movement to revive public knowledge of this essential right.

What is true is that if the opening statements by defense and prosecution give an accurate image of the evidence that will be presented at trial, then it is only logical that the juror’s views of the case at the conclusion of the presentation of evidence would be the same as at the end of the opening statement. In light of that fact, it is important for the defense to be scrupulously accurate about what the evidence will show, and give the jurors an ethical framework in which to consider that evidence. The jurors must be empowered to view the evidence from an ethical, as well as a factual, perspective, if they are to deliver an ethically-based verdict.

Yes, juries clearly have the power, but history shows they also have the right and duty, no matter what the legal profession claims. Jury Nullification has long been a critical last defense against authoritarianism. It has a history of blocking the arbitrary power of the state and turning society in the direction of freedom.

English common law provides for trial by jury. One important but long forgotten feature of trial by jury is the potential for Jury Nullification, sometimes called Jury Independence.

The judge can do nothing to change the verdict. When it goes the other way, if the jury convicts the defendant despite a clear lack of evidence of guilt, the judge can give a directed verdict of not guilty. That situation, known as “jury vilification” is rare. Jury nullification, however, is much more common than most realize.

The Accuser said, “I petition the court for a change of venue on the grounds that this heavenly court places the defense at great advantage and the prosecution at great disadvantage. I petition the court for jury nullification on the grounds that the myriad of heavenly host are incapable of impartial witness because of overriding prejudicial bias in favor of the defendant. I petition the judge to recuse himself on the grounds of conflict of interest as he is the defendant in his own trial and therefore cannot be impartial and unbiased. And I petition the judge for the removal of the defense attorney next to me on the grounds of his lack of legal qualifications for this case.

Maitland noticed in the mid-thirteenth century the rise of what today is called jury nullification of the law. Juries were reluctant to convict the very young, women, the senile, or first offenders with good reputations. A 1980 study shows a conviction level of indicted people—not much higher than in New York City today—of only 35 percent in about the year 1320. In response, judges did what criminal justice officials in New York do today. They began to resort to plea bargaining.