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.
Jury nullification may also occur in civil suits, in which the verdict is generally a finding of liability or lack of liability (rather than a finding of guilty or not guilty). [20] The main ethical issue involved in jury nullification is the tension between democratic self-government and integrity. [21]
The theory of state nullification has never been legally upheld by federal courts, [4] although jury nullification has. [ 2 ] The theory of nullification is based on a view that the states formed the Union by an agreement (or "compact") among the states, and that as creators of the federal government, the states have the final authority to ...
Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 (1896), was a United States Supreme Court case that, among other things, approved the use of a jury instruction intended to prevent a hung jury by encouraging jurors in the minority to reconsider. The Court affirmed Alexander Allen's murder conviction, having vacated his two prior convictions for the same crime.
Rebuffed repeatedly by chief justice James DeLancey during the trial, Hamilton decided to plead his client's case directly to the jury. After the lawyers for both sides finished their arguments on August 5, 1735, the jury retired only to return in ten minutes with a verdict of not guilty, [15] [16] [17] a famous example of jury nullification.
The push for federal charges came from the US Attorney’s office, multiple law enforcement sources told CNN. ... “Jury nullification is the secret hope and dream of every defense attorney that ...
United States, 156 U.S. 51 (1895), or Sparf and Hansen v. United States , [ 1 ] was a United States Supreme Court case testing the admissibility of confessions by multiple defendants accused of the same crime, and the rights of juries.
[2] The Cato Institute refers to the book as an "eye-opening history" of jury independence, the relevant laws, and the implications of jury nullification. [3] The book surveys the history of jury nullification, describing how it has changed with cases such as Sparf v. United States and with the advent of death-qualified juries. It ends with a ...