Jury nullification is a legal concept where a jury decides not to convict a defendant despite evidence that the defendant has violated the law. Essentially, it occurs when a jury believes that a conviction would be unjust or that the law itself is unjust, and therefore chooses to acquit the defendant regardless of the evidence presented. This power rests solely with the jury and is not explicitly mentioned in law, but it is considered a fundamental aspect of the jury system.
The concept of jury nullification has historical roots dating back centuries. In the United States, it has been upheld by several court cases, although courts generally do not inform juries of this power. Instead, it is considered a form of jury independence, allowing jurors to act as a check on the government's power to enforce laws.
One notable case demonstrating jury nullification is that of John Peter Zenger in 1735. Zenger, a printer in colonial New York, was accused of seditious libel for criticizing the colonial governor in his newspaper. Despite clear evidence of Zenger's actions, the jury acquitted him, establishing a precedent for the idea that juries could refuse to convict defendants if they believed the law was unjust or unfairly applied.
Another example is the case of United States v. Dougherty in 1972. In this federal case, the defendants were accused of destroying Selective Service records during the Vietnam War. Despite overwhelming evidence of their guilt, the jury acquitted them, reportedly because they disagreed with the government's prosecution of the Vietnam War.
It's important to note that while jury nullification can serve as a check on government power and promote justice in certain cases, it can also lead to inconsistent application of the law and undermine the rule of law. Additionally, jurors are not informed of this power in most jurisdictions, and discussing or advocating for jury nullification during jury selection or deliberations can lead to sanctions or removal from the jury. Therefore, jurors should carefully consider their role in the justice system and the implications of their decisions.