I’ve been reading a lot about jury nullification, and I get that jurors have the power to acquit someone even if the law technically says they’re guilty. But what I don’t get is—why is this something that exists, yet courts don’t allow it to be talked about during a trial?
If it’s a legitimate part of the legal system, why is it treated like a secret? Would a juror get in trouble for mentioning it during deliberations? And what would happen if someone brought it up during jury selection?
I’m just curious how this all works in practice. If jurors can ultimately do whatever they want, what stops them from using nullification all the time?
Pretty simple. A jury is 12 rrandom-ish people (ignoring the Voir Dire process where lawyers argue about who deserves to be on the jury).
If you openly are for jury nullification, then the prosecutor will try to throw you out in the Voir Dire proces (its unfair to the prosecutor if you think that you can ignore the Prosecutor’s argument entirely). Then they select someone else to be part of the jury.
Secondly, all 12 members of the jury have to agree on the decision. So all 12 of you have to agree that the law is unfair in this case and opt for jury nullification instead. There’s examples where this happens: ex a child gets charged for child pornography when they send a picture of themselves. After all, they “distributed child porn” which is grossly illegal by the law, but the jury can agree “Yeah, they broke the law but don’t deserve to be punished in this case”. That’s the kind of thing jury nullification was created for, when everything is “technically correct”, but the jury is smart enough to realize that its not “Truly a crime”.
I mean I’ve seen a few felony murder cases get acquitted via what must have been jury nullification, since the law and the events were clear. Locking someone up for life for a murder they didn’t commit simply doesn’t sit well with a lot of people.
All 12 only have to agree on guilt. Just one is enough to prevent a guilty verdict. Although unless all 12 vote not guilty the prosecution can potentially still run a new trial with a fresh jury.
No they cannot. That would be double jeopardy, where the prosecution can just keep charging you with the same crime until you’re found guilty.
Defense can appeal a conviction. But an appeal has to be based on something that shouldn’t have happened in the first trial, or if new evidence is uncovered that would have a material impact on the verdict. Even then, that doesn’t mean the defendant is not guilty. Now they get a new trial. With a new jury. With all the same evidence and testimony from the first trial, which we know produced a guilty verdict. Best chance for you is if the DA doesn’t want to reprosecute.
All of that last bit is the sole privilege of the defense.
You have not understood the parent comment. Re-read it: They are talking about a hung jury.
A hung jury is not the same thing as a not guilty verdict.
Of course it isn’t. A hung jury gets you trial number three.
I think you misunderstood my previous comment then because that’s what I was referring to.
That is still so very wrong.
When a jury is unable to reach a decision, what are the things that can then potentially happen?
Lacking a unanimous verdict, it is a mistrial and they do the whole song and dance again, or the charges are dismissed (with or without prejudice.)
At that point it’s out of the jury’s hands. The judge may weigh in and make the decision, and the prosecution may decide they won’t be able to convince another jury, and tell the judge to dismiss.