Introduction
The Jury has the power to exercise nullification while conducting jury duties. This power is accorded as a matter of practice and in common law, and not necessarily under legislation. Jury nullification occurs when the fact finding is clear of the defendant’s guilt, but the jury relying on its own understanding of fairness and justice, decides to acquit. There has been on going debate as to whether the judges should inform the jury of their nullification ability or not. This paper explores the position that the jury should not be informed of their nullification powers (Bellin, 2010).
Background
The nullification by jury originates from the Bushell’s case 1670 decision. The case originated from another case in which there was a prosecution of Quakers Penn and Mead William for unlawful assembly. During the trial of the initial case, the guilt of the defendants was clear in evidence and thus application of the relevant statute was required. In as much as their guilt was evident and open, the jury acquitted the accused against the directive of the court; openly instructed to them in the hearing.
Juror Bushell was sent to prison for disobeying the judge’s directive. He sought release from the Court of Common Pleas. The C.J Vaughan ruled that the detention was against the law, stating that; however manifested the evidence appeared, if it did not manifest to the jury, and that they trusted as such, it would not be a punishable fault deserving imprisonment. Bushell’s Case is widely cited as the first precedent for nullification ability and the independence of the jury (Badger Lawyer, n.d).
The jury nullifications ability
Under the current laws, the judge is not obliged to inform the jury of their nullification ability. Moreover, the current principle in courts prohibits judges, witnesses, and attorneys from informing the jury of applicable stiff laws, in case of conviction. By informing the jury of their nullification powers, it would be in essence inviting them to exercise those very powers. Jury nullification is a less than perfect way of administering justice. Nullification can create an unfair advantage to undeserving defendants who are facing severe prison sentence, thus this means becomes ineffective in controlling of crime. Nullification could also be seen as a way of denying the judge/court the responsibility of applying the enacted sentencing legislation, by defeating the process through nullification (Bellin, 2010).
Under the Federal Constitution, an acquittal even if it’s based upon an egregiously erroneous foundation, it cannot be disturbed. When an informed jury invokes nullification, thus acquittal, for reason that the consequences of conviction to be excessive, its verdict would be as conclusive as a verdict based on the weakness of the prosecution evidence. Therefore, statutory reforms of sentencing provisions are a better mechanism of correcting injustices occasioned by those laws, as opposed to jury nullification in instances of excesses of the law.
Limiting the independence of the jury
In the case of Shannon v. United States, the Supreme Court confirmed that the role of the jury is to decide if the facts presented establish a violation of the law, and that the potential punishment is irrelevant to the jury’s duties. Also, the information as to the punishment interferes with the jurors fact finding duties. This can also be interpreted that, informing the jurors of their nullification ability would distract them from fact finding responsibilities. However, the courts have acknowledged that it does not violate any constitutional right by providing the jury with sentencing information or advising them on their nullification powers. Trial courts have the responsibility to forestall or prevent nullification, thus they can remove from the jury a juror with intentions of nullifying. Furthermore, a jury has no more right to find a not guilty defendant to be guilty, than it has to find a guilty defendant not guilty (Guenther, n.d).
In Sparf v. United States, the Supreme Court held that the jury had no right to decide the law. It stated that, the private and public safety would be compromised if a rule be established to allow juries in criminal cases, as a matter of right, to disregard the law as expounded to them by the court, and take to be the law. In decisions before Apprendi and after Sparf, the U.S. Supreme Court continued to limit the right to jury nullification and found that the jury should not consider the possible sentence in non-capital cases (Guenther, n.d).
In conclusion, the right or ability of the jury to nullify in criminal proceedings can be used to check and counter the excesses of the law in particular situations. Some circumstances may warrant special application of the law, especially where the punishment is seen to be excessive. However, as explained above, the jury nullification ability is open to manipulation by the defendants in undermining justice. Moreover, bringing the attention of the ability to nullify to the jury brings confusion as to the fundamental task of the jury. It is further defeats the responsibility of the judge, which is to determine the issues of law and the jury to determine the issues of facts. To that extent the jury should not be informed of its ability to nullify.
References
Badger Lawyer (n.d). What is Jury Nullification?. Retrieved from http://www.badgerlawyer.com/blog/?p=132
Guenther, E. R., (n.d). Nullification: A Jury’s Secret Weapon. Retrieved from http://www.hbslawfirm.com/articles_display.php?id=65
Bellin, E. (2010) Is Punishment Relevant After All? Boston University Law Review, 90:2223. Retrieved from www.bu.edu/law/central/jd/organizations/journals//BELLIN.pdf
