It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Jury nullification occurs when a jury returns a verdict that is the opposite of what the jury believes or the verdict it was instructed to return by the court.
A jury verdict that is contrary to the letter of the law pertains only to the particular case before it. If a pattern of acquittals develops, however, in response to repeated attempts to prosecute a statutory offence, this can have the de facto effect of invalidating the statute. A pattern of jury nullification may indicate public opposition to an unwanted legislative enactment.
In the past, it was feared that a single judge or panel of government officials might be unduly influenced to follow established legal practice, even when that practice had drifted from its origins. In most modern Western legal systems, however, judges often instruct juries to act only as "finders of facts", whose role it is to determine the veracity of the evidence presented, the weight accorded to the evidence, to apply that evidence to the law as explained by the judge, and to reach a verdict; but not to question the law or decide what it says. Similarly, juries are routinely cautioned by courts and some attorneys not to allow sympathy for a party or other affected persons to compromise the fair and dispassionate evaluation of evidence. These instructions are criticized by advocates of jury nullification. Some commonly cited historical examples of jury nullification involve jurors refusing to convict persons accused of violating the Fugitive Slave Act by assisting runaway slaves or being fugitive slaves themselves, and refusal of American colonial juries to convict a defendant under English law
originally posted by: Metallicus
If I were on a jury I would always rule for the defendant unless there is a crime against person or property. Without damage to person or property there isn’t any victim.
originally posted by: toysforadults
why are police officers enforcing unconstitutional laws that's always been a big question in my mind
I always found it weird that DAs choose not to enforce regular criminal laws against government employees/ officials as well, kinda weird huh?
originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: Metallicus
In the decision Sparf v. U.S. 156US51, the principle of jury nullification was first attacked by the federal judiciary. In that decision the court ruled that no court had an obligation to inform a jury of its power and duty to nullify poor federal law.
The American Jury Institute is an organization that hafija.org... been promoting education of citizens regarding the power of jury nullification.
US juries have been tamed, chained and made subservient to the state.