It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
In the 1895 in the case of Sparf v. United States written by Justice John Marshall Harlan, the United States Supreme Court held 5 to 4 that a trial judge has no responsibility to inform the jury of the right to nullify laws. This decision, often cited, has led to a common practice by United States judges to penalize anyone who attempts to present a nullification argument to jurors and to declare a mistrial if such argument has been presented to them. In some states, jurors are likely to be struck from the panel during voir dire if they will not agree to accept as correct the rulings and instructions of the law as provided by the judge.[36] In recent rulings, the courts have continued to prohibit informing juries about jury nullification. In a 1969, Fourth Circuit decision, U.S. v. Moylan, 417 F.2d 1002 (4th Cir.1969), the Court affirmed the concept of jury nullification, but upheld the power of a court to refuse to permit an instruction to the jury to this effect.[37] In 1972, in United States v. Dougherty, 473 F.2d 1113, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a ruling similar to Moylan that affirmed the de facto power of a jury to nullify the law but upheld the denial of the defense's chance to instruct the jury about the power to nullify.[38] In 1988, the Sixth Circuit upheld a jury instruction: "There is no such thing as valid jury nullification." In 'United States v. Thomas (1997), the Second Circuit ruled that jurors can be removed if there is evidence that they intend to nullify the law. The Supreme Court has not recently confronted the issue of jury nullification. Further, as officers of the court, attorneys have sworn an oath to uphold the law, and are ethically prohibited from directly advocating for jury nullification.[39]
(C.R.S. 18-8-609 (2014))18-8-609. Jury-tampering
(1) A person commits jury-tampering if, with intent to influence a juror’s vote, opinion, decision, or other action in a case, he attempts directly or indirectly to communicate with a juror other than as a part of the proceedings in the trial of the case.
(1.5) A person commits jury-tampering if he knowingly participates in the fraudulent processing or selection of jurors or prospective jurors.
(2) Jury-tampering is a class 5 felony; except that jury-tampering in any class 1 felony trial is a class 4 felony.
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Sremmos80
I got that but I do not see the issue. We had a law school drop out on our panel and he is the one who brought it up during deliberation.
originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: soulshn
Jury nullification occurred the most before the American Revolution. After independence it was primarily used in slave cases.
SCOTUS / Federal Appeals circuits have ruled that judges are not required to notify / instruct jurors with Jury nullification.
Federal Jury Nullification - SCOTUS ruling against Federal Judges being required to notify Jurors
* - Sparf v. United States
Several Federal appeals districts have ruled judges are not required to notify of the ability for Jury nullification. The Practice itself is a problem because it does the one thing a lot of people on this site bitch about - legislation by the courts. Jury nullification allows a judgment of the law in question and not the person charged under the law.
Why is this a dangerous area?
Jury nullification was used a lot during the civil rights movement to acquit white people who were charged with murdering black people.
Jury nullification ignores the law and allows a person to decide based on their own personally held belief on what they think of the law in question, which is problematic.
Allowing jury nullification opens the door to massive problems. Secondly it violates the laws established concerning officers of the court (lawyers / judges / etc) in terms of upholding the law.
In this case in Colorado they violated Colorado law via jury tampering statutes. Instructions to the jury on how deliberations work and what can and cannot be considered resides solely with the judge.
(C.R.S. 18-8-609 (2014))18-8-609. Jury-tampering
(1) A person commits jury-tampering if, with intent to influence a juror’s vote, opinion, decision, or other action in a case, he attempts directly or indirectly to communicate with a juror other than as a part of the proceedings in the trial of the case.
(1.5) A person commits jury-tampering if he knowingly participates in the fraudulent processing or selection of jurors or prospective jurors.
(2) Jury-tampering is a class 5 felony; except that jury-tampering in any class 1 felony trial is a class 4 felony.
Colorado Revised Statutes
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Sharted
Information control: one of the oldest forms of tyranny.
originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: soulshn
It's surprising that every defense attorney doesn't start with explaining Jury nullification in the opening statements of controversial cases.
I imagine a lot of drug use cases could be thrown out with this simple principle. Not many people like to see drug addicts put in jail, because many people see what a waste of money and time this is on our system.
If enough cases were nullified the laws would have to change.
Drug addicts need rehabilitation not jail. Drug makers and sellers ok, but the drug user going to jail makes no since.
It's similar to prostitutes going to jail while the pimps roam free. Some laws just don't work and end up vilifying the wrong people.
Add - personally I would rather see a few guilty people set free than many people be subjected to unjust laws with unjust punishments. Freedom is better than Tyranny.
In cases past, it was decided that Judges must inform jurors of their ability to not convict based on the quality of the law the defendant is being charged under. In Sparf v. United States the Justices established that, in the federal courts, jurors only had the right to receive the law from the court, and to apply it as given by the court.[4]