Understanding Jury Nullification: Definition, Examples, And Implications

It’s important to clarify that it is not illegal for jurors to return a not guilty verdict for a defendant even if they believe that the defendant did, indeed, break the law. Robust protections are in place that prevent jurors from being punished for their verdict, even if that verdict does not follow the law.

That being said, the American legal system intends for juries to work as instruments that evaluate the facts and present a verdict based on those facts—that is, jury nullification is not an intended side effect of the legal system, but rather a byproduct of ensuring that jurors will not be prosecuted for their decisions in cases.

There are two major reasons that juries may choose nullification:

1. They believe that the law that was broken is unjust.
2. They believe that the defendant should not be held responsible under the current law.

An example where a jury may determine that a law is unjust is in the case of illegal substances. The jury may decide that a certain substance should not be illegal or should not receive the degree of punishment that is in place. In a case like this, the jury might bring a verdict of not guilty even if they believed that the defendant was in possession of the substance.

An example where the jury may decide that the defendant should not be held responsible under the current law could occur in the case of a domestic violence victim who killed their abuser. In many cases, if a victim kills their abuser when the victim’s life isn’t in danger, they can still be prosecuted for homicide. A jury might determine that the victim should not be punished for homicide even if it is proven that the law was broken.

Jury nullification can occur in one of two ways: the entire jury can decide to work together to nullify the verdict, or one or more jurors might decide to vote not guilty to cause a hung jury. Although these sound like very similar instances, the results can be quite different.

If all jurors vote to acquit, the defendant cannot be tried again for the same crime as it would constitute double jeopardy. Therefore, when nullification of this sort occurs, the decision is final.

If one or more (but not all) jurors vote to acquit, it typically results in a hung jury. In this instance, the defendant can (and probably will) be tried again. This type of nullification does not end the prosecution; instead, it just creates the possibility of another trial.

There are definite advantages and disadvantages to making a decision of this sort. Here are some of the considerations on both sides.

Pros

• Changes in the American justice system can happen very slowly. Jury nullification allows juries to protect defendants from unjust laws that may not yet have been revised. It’s a safety net, particularly when laws that no longer represent contemporary ethics are still on the books.
• It allows the jury to make a correction if the law is being enforced in a way that is unjust.
• It provides juries with flexibility to cater their decision to the facts of a particular case.

Cons

• Jury nullification does not change the law. If it is used in a case where the law is unjust, it only matters for that single verdict.
• It may undermine the integrity of the law. Our legal system exists under the idea that the law is enforced in the same way towards everyone. The idea that a small group of people can decide that a law does not apply to a certain person could weaken our entire legal system.
• It is technically a violation of the oath jurors take to participate in this sort of action. Although it cannot be prosecuted, it is still an action that is in conflict with a sworn oath.

There are some well-known examples of jury nullification to be familiar with.

Kevorkian Assisted Suicide Case

One of the most famous cases involving jury nullification is the murder trial of Dr. Jack Kevorkian. In the early to mid-1990s, Kevorkian helped multiple people commit suicide. Although he did not actually kill any of his patients, he did help patients who asked to kill themselves.

As assisting suicide was not against any written legislation, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled in 1994 that assisted suicide has always been a common law crime, opening the door to the prosecution of Kevorkian. During his 1996 trial, Kevorkian, who defended himself, made the argument that he had not violated any law.

The jury in this case chose to acquit Kevorkian, even though the fact that Kevorkian assisted with the suicides was never in question. However, juror interviews afterwards indicated that members of the jury did not accept the common law justification given by the Michigan Supreme Court.

The Camden 28 Case

During the Vietnam War, a group of anti-war activists, including several faith leaders, broke into the draft board offices in Camden, New Jersey. However, a member of the group had informed the FBI, who laid in wait. The FBI did not take action until the activists had handled and destroyed thousands of documents. At that point, they commenced the raid and arrested 28 people.

Those 28 people chose to be tried together. In 1973, when the trial began, there was growing resistance to the ongoing Vietnam War, and many viewed this trial as a referendum on the war itself. Even though there was no doubt that the 28 people involved did break into the draft board and thereby broke the law, the jury returned 28 “not guilty” verdicts and the case stands as an example of a jury standing up to a prosecution that they felt was unjust.

As mentioned above, juries have the power to nullify the law in individual cases by finding a defendant not guilty even when there is enough evidence to prove the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Like other forms of power, it can be misused.

It’s important that jurors think about why they are considering nullification. This action can move society forward, such as in the Camden 28 case, but it can also undermine faith in the justice system. It is a power that should be used sparingly and after great consideration.

Most states do not allow jurors to be informed about nullification in jury instructions. Some argue that this is proper, as nullification is an extralegal tactic that is not sanctioned by law. Others argue that nullification is a common-law right, meaning that the use of it for just purposes is appropriate.

It is unlikely that the legal community (or society as a whole) will come to a consensus about jury nullification anytime soon. Until then, jurors will need to reach their own ethical decision about whether jury nullification is appropriate, both in a general sense and in regard to the case that they are empaneled to hear.