United States Jury nullification

1 united states

1.1 fugitive slave law
1.2 post civil war
1.3 21st century
1.4 judicial opinion
1.5 state laws

united states

in united states, jury nullification first appeared before american revolutionary war, when colonial juries exercised nullification power, principally in maritime cases , cases implicating free speech. jury nullification became common many british prosecutors gave trying maritime cases because conviction seemed hopeless. in pre-civil war era, juries refused convict violations of fugitive slave act. later, during prohibition, juries nullified alcohol control laws, possibly 60% of time. resistance may have contributed adoption of twenty-first amendment repealing prohibition, eighteenth amendment.

in well-known example of jury nullification, @ end of wild bill hickok s trial manslaughter of davis tutt in 1865, judge sempronius boyd gave jury 2 instructions. first instructed jury conviction option under law; instructed them apply unwritten law of fair fight , acquit. hickok acquitted, verdict not popular public.

fugitive slave law

jury nullification practiced in 1850s protest federal fugitive slave act, part of compromise of 1850. act had been passed mollify slave owners south, otherwise threatening secede union. across north, local juries acquitted men accused of violating law. secretary of state daniel webster key supporter of law expressed in famous seventh of march speech. wanted high-profile convictions.

the jury nullifications ruined presidential aspirations , last-ditch efforts find compromise between north , south. webster led prosecution when defendants accused of rescuing shadrach minkins in 1851 boston officials intended return minkins owner; juries convicted none of men. webster tried enforce law extremely unpopular in north, , whig party passed on him again when chose presidential nominee in 1852.

post civil war

white defendants accused of crimes against blacks , other minorities have been acquitted all-white juries, in south, in face of irrefutable evidence.

21st century

in 21st century, many discussions of jury nullification center on drug laws consider unjust either in principle or because seen discriminate against groups. jury nullification advocacy group estimates 3–4% of jury trials involve nullification, , recent rise in hung juries seen being indirect evidence juries have begun consider validity or fairness of laws themselves.

judicial opinion

in 1895 case of sparf v. united states written justice john marshall harlan, united states supreme court held 5 4 trial judge has no responsibility inform jury of right nullify laws. decision, cited, has led common practice united states judges penalize attempts present nullification argument jurors , declare mistrial if such argument has been presented them. in states, jurors struck panel during voir dire if not agree accept correct rulings , instructions of law provided judge.

in recent rulings, courts have continued prohibit informing juries jury nullification. in 1969, fourth circuit decision, u.s. v. moylan, 417 f.2d 1002 (4th cir.1969), court affirmed concept of jury nullification, upheld power of court refuse permit instruction jury effect. in 1972, in united states v. dougherty, 473 f.2d 1113, united states court of appeals district of columbia circuit issued ruling similar moylan affirmed de facto power of jury nullify law upheld denial of defense s chance instruct jury power nullify.

in 1988, sixth circuit upheld jury instruction: there no such thing valid jury nullification. in united states v. thomas (1997), second circuit ruled jurors can removed if there evidence intend nullify law. supreme court has not confronted issue of jury nullification.

in 2017, ninth circuit upheld first 3 sentences of jury s instruction , overruled second half. jury instructions cannot substitute sense of justice, whatever means, duty follow law, whether agree or not. not determine whether law or whether law unjust. cannot task. there no such thing valid jury nullification. violate oath , law if willfully brought verdict contrary law given in case. however, deemed harmless error , affirmed conviction.

state laws

on june 18, 2012, new hampshire passed law explicitly allowing defense attorneys inform juries jury nullification. on october 24, 2014, new hampshire supreme court nullified law, holding wording of statute not allow defense attorneys tell juries can nullify law.