Should you be chosen to be a juror in the United States legal system, you will become one of the most powerful forces in the country. So powerful, in fact, that usually, you will not be fully informed of the powers vested in you. What powers, you ask? Obviously, you (and your co-jurors) will control the future of the defendant. You will be presented with evidence and asked to judge whether the defendant, "beyond a reasonable doubt", violated the law.
Your power does not end there however. While it's relatively rare in today's legal system for you to be "fully informed", a jury also has the power to judge the law itself!! Heresy you say?? Judge the law?? That's right, if you, as a juror, feel that a law is being applied to a situation that is inappropriate, or there are mitigating circumstances that justified or otherwise excused the defendants actions, or for any other reason, in spite of undeniable evidence of the guilt of the defendant, you can acquit them. No court or congress can overturn your ruling! You are the ultimate determining factor in not only the guilt or innocence of the defendant, but of the validity of the law itself!
When the prosecutor and defense attorneys have finished presenting evidence in a case, and before the jury retires to deliberate, the judge will "instruct" the jury on how to deliberate and what to consider. It is highly unlikely that the judge will inform the jurors of their right to "nullify" the law. Instead, the judge will probably say that you must "consider only the facts" of the case and must "accept the law as I give it to you." You are also likely to be told that you may not let your conscience, your opinion of the law or its application, or motives of the defendant affect your decision. Should a defense attorney start to try to mention the doctrine of "jury nullification of law" (also known as "jury veto power"), the judge will immediately stop him, and usually cite him for contempt of court if he continues. So why do judges fear the power of a "fully informed jury?" Apparently, they don't want ordinary citizens making judgments about the law or how to apply it, even if it is their country! In some states (New Jersey, among others), this situation is so extreme that defense lawyers can be disbarred for attempting to inform a jury of its rights!
Unfortunately, this attitude stems from the belief by some that private citizens cannot be trusted with the incredible power this concept embodies. Historically, this has not been the case. In the February term of 1794, the Supreme Court of the United States, in the jury case of STATE OF GEORGIA VS. BRAILSFORD, ET AL 3 Dall. 1: charged the jury as follows:
"... it is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is on the other hand, presumed that the courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision ... you have the right to take upon yourselves to judge both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy."
More recently, the United States Court of appeals for the District of Columbia has cleverly acknowledged, there can be no doubt that the jury has an "unreviewable and unreversible power ... to acquit in disregard of the instructions on law given by the trial judge ..." U.S. VS. DOUGHERTY, 43 F 2d 1113,1139 (1972)
This power was also referred to in an earlier decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Maryland: "We recognize, as appeals urge, the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge, and contrary to the evidence. this is a power that must continue to exist as long as we adhere to the general verdict in criminal cases, for the courts cannot search the minds of the jurors to find the basis on which they judge. If the jury feels the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justify the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to the logic passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision." U.S. VS. MOYLAN, 417 F 2d 1002,1006 (1969)
Thomas Jefferson once said of this power "I consider a trial by jury as the only anchor yet devised by man, by which government can be held accountable to the principles of it's constitution." In the United States, juries are supposed to be the final check and balance for the whole system.
John Adams, our second president, had this to say about a juror: "It is not only his right, but his duty ... to find the verdict according to his own best understanding , judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court."
Sadly, too often today, jurors have ended up apologizing to the defendant right after they voted to convict, precisely because they were told they "had to" make their decision based on "law and fact alone."
Now that you know the truth, tell a friend. Help correct this long standing injustice. Get involved with FIJA, The Fully Informed Jury Amendment. FIJA would require by state constitutional law that judges resume the practice of telling jurors about their right to vote their conscience when deciding on a verdict. Jurors would have to be told they have the right to acquit someone because they believe that the law itself is wrong, or is being wrongly applied, even when the facts of the case would support conviction.
FIJA is also the name of an organization sponsoring this and related jury-rights amendments. If you would like more information, please contact:
FIJA National headquarters
Box 59
Helmville, Montana 59843
(406) 793 5550
(This message is brought to you by a recent juror who would have decided an important case differently - "If only I had known")