Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Jury nullification sometimes takes the form of a jury convicting the defendant of lesser charges than the prosecutor sought. [13] In the 21st century, many discussions of jury nullification center around drug laws that many consider unjust either in principle or because they disproportionately affect members of certain groups.
Some commonly cited historical examples of jury nullification involve jurors refusing to convict persons accused of violating the Fugitive Slave Act by assisting runaway slaves or being fugitive slaves themselves, and refusal of American colonial juries to convict a defendant under English law. [8] Jury nullification is the source of much debate.
Jury nullification occurs when a jury returns a not guilty verdict even though jurors believe beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant has broken the law. This may happen when jurors disagree ...
Make no mistake, jury nullification, like it or not, is as American as apple pie: Courts recognize that jurors surely have the power to nullify, even if not the right.
The Constitution does not contain any clause expressly providing that the states have the power to declare federal laws unconstitutional. Supporters of nullification have argued that the states' power of nullification is inherent in the nature of the federal system. They have argued that before the Constitution was ratified, the states essentially were separate nation
Some prosecutors and law enforcement professionals are strongly opposed to the notion that juries can nullify undesirable laws. [17] In 2008, Clay Conrad, author of Jury Nullification: The Evolution of a Doctrine, quit the organization, stating that it was "so centered on jury nullification that it was ignoring the numerous threats that exist to the jury as an institution," [18] as evidenced ...
Others, like CNN legal commentator Elie Honig, said that the case carries the “highest risk” of jury nullification precisely due to the popularity of the 26-year-old.
United States v. Thomas, 116 F.3d 606 (2nd Cir. 1997), [1] was a case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that a juror could not be removed from a jury on the ground that the juror was acting in purposeful disregard of the court's instructions on the law, when the record evidence raises a possibility that the juror was simply unpersuaded by the Government's case ...