Jury Nullification in the United States

Oakland County 52nd District Court. Photo Credit: Danielle Anderson, 2014

In 1997, Colorado Juror Laura Kriho was convicted of contempt of court for failing to inform attorneys during jury selection on a drug case of her opposition to the drug laws. When she was a juror in this case, Laura told the rest of the jury the penalty the defendant could face. She also talked about the possibility of jury nullification (Brandl). Jury nullification is an important concept in the American legal system. It allows a jury to reach a verdict regardless of evidence. There is a lot of controversy surrounding this practice, including morality, legality, and political power.

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury…” It is an American’s constitutional right to be tried by a jury of their peers. This right was created so the government could not become too powerful, and so that the people would have the power. The primary purpose of a jury is not to punish their fellow citizen, but to protect the accused from overuse of government power. The power of a jury to nullify comes from two fundamental law precedents. First, the jury cannot be punished for their verdict, according to common law, which is based on precedent. Second, the accused cannot be tried again for the same crime, according to the Fifth Amendment.

A jury nullification is never based on facts of the case. It is a decision made by the jury, without factoring in evidence. Regardless of whether or not a crime has been committed, the jury decides whether or not the defendant will be punished. The most common instance of jury nullification is when there is a sympathetic jury that understands the person’s motive and feels they are justified. For example, petty theft or embezzlement by a very poor person. However, there can be opposite instances. If a jury simply doesn’t like a defendant, they have the power to declare them guilty of a crime and have them punished. This can happen a lot with racial prejudices, sexism, etc.  But even a sympathetic jury can be a disadvantage. In the past, Southern juries have used nullification to acquit white people accused of hate crimes against black people. It could be argued that this is done presently, considering the Trayvon Martin case, in which a young, unarmed black man was killed and the shooter was acquitted (Alvarez). Nevertheless, there are many advantages to jury nullification. For example, it prevents overpopulation in prisons. It is unnecessary for people to go to prison for petty crimes. However, a report by the ACLU in 2013 showed that more than 3,200 people are serving life sentences without parole for nonviolent crimes (ACLU), including stealing tools from a tool shed (Harkinson).  Another benefit of jury nullification is encouraging change in laws in the US. Some might say these changes should be voted on, but often our legal system takes a long time to change, and letting guilty people go might be a clearer sign to change it. Furthermore, jury nullification may have a political leaning.

Some laws with extreme penalties are often victimless crimes, such as marijuana possession and file sharing. It can be argued that people guilty of breaking these laws do not deserve to be punished, or at very least, don’t deserve jail time. Some might say, it just isn’t anyone else’s business if people want to use marijuana. In this case, jury nullification would have a libertarian political bias. Libertarian political view supports an individual’s private pursuit of happiness with limited interaction from the government. However, in some cases, jury nullification is the result of other political agendas. File sharing, for example, might be an issue with Republicans. If someone illegally obtains music without giving the artist proper compensation, they aren’t receiving the money they earned. Republicans believe an individual earns money based on how hard they work.

One instance of jury nullification not working out is the case of Rich Paul, a man from New Hampshire, who was sentenced to 81 years in prison for selling marijuana. He did not accept a plea bargain because he wanted to prove a point- according to him, marijuana is harmless and you should be able to use it recreationally and sell it to your friends. He relied on the jury to acquit him, but the found him guilty and he is currently serving time. Although, he’s planning on appealing to the New Hampshire Supreme Court on the grounds that the judge misled the jury on what nullification is. In 2012, New Hampshire adopted a law that allows defense lawyers to tell jurors that they have the right to judge the application of the law, rather than just the case facts. (Cheadle). Most of the time, judges don’t even mention nullification. In the 1895 in the case of Sparf v. United States, United States Supreme Court ruled that a judge has no responsibility to inform the jury of the right to nullify (Klein).

Jury nullification is a valuable part of our country’s legal system, although it can be abused. It is written into our legal system through the bill of rights and common law. Jury nullification is also important to keeping the government from getting too powerful. If the government passes a law that everyone, the people, disagree with, we have the right to acquit people who break the law. This, at least, was the intention. It can also be used to further prejudice. People can use jury nullification to fuel their own political agendas and abuse their power. However, it is a constitutional right, it is protected by law,  and  it was put in place to prevent the government from tyranny.


Danielle Anderson, June 2014

Works Cited

"A Living Death: Sentenced to Die Behind Bars for What?." American Civil Liberties Union. American Civil Liberties Union, 13 Nov. 2013. Web. 11 June 2014. <https://www.aclu.org/living-death-sentenced-die-behind-bars-what>.

Alvarez, Lizette, and Cara Buckley. "Zimmerman Is Acquitted in Trayvon Martin Killing."The New York Times. The New York Times, 13 July 2013. Web. 29 June 2014. <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/14/us/george-zimmerman-verdict-trayvon-martin.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0>.

"Bill of Rights Transcript". Archives.gov. Retrieved 2014-06-11.

Brandl, Marc. "A Victory for Jury Rights: Conviction of Juror in Nullification Case Overturned." A Victory for Jury Rights. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 June 2014. <http://www.progress.org/drc07.htm>.

Cheadle, Harry. "Rich Paul Is Appealing His 81-Year Prison Sentence for Selling Pot | VICE United States." VICE. Vice Media, Inc., 29 May 2013. Web. 11 June 2014. <http://www.vice.com/read/rich-paul-is-appealing-his-81-year-prison-sentence-for-selling-pot?utm_source=vicefbus>.

"Fully Informed Jury Association." , Jury Nullification. American Jury Institute, 1 Jan. 2014. Web. 11 June 2014. <http://fija.org/>.

Harkinson, Josh. "23 petty crimes that have landed people in prison for life." Mother Jones. Mother Jones, 13 Nov. 2013. Web. 11 June 2014. <http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/11/23-petty-crimes-prison-life-without-parole>.

Klein, Chuck. "A DIRTY LITTLE JUDICIAL SECRET." Judicial Secrets. N.p., 1 Jan. 2002. Web. 29 June 2014. <http://www.chuckkleinauthor.com/Page.aspx/283/judicial-secrets.html>.

Liz Clark Rinehart, The Zimmerman Verdict and Jury Nullification, JURIST - Dateline, Aug. 7, 2013, http://jurist.org/dateline/2013/08/liz-rinehart-jury-nullification.php

"POWER TO THE JURY: Save people from doing time for things that shouldn't be crimes." Power to the Jury: Jury nullification protects good people from bad laws. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 June 2014. <http://powertothejury.org/>.

If you use my essay, please give me credit. Cite this essay:

Anderson, Danielle. "Jury Nullification in the United States." : Jury Nullification in the United States. N.p., 25 July 2014. Web. 25 July 2014. <http://danielleswriting1029.blogspot.com/2014/07/jury-nullification-in-united-states.html>.