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.
On June 18, 2012, New Hampshire passed a law explicitly allowing defense attorneys to inform juries about jury nullification. [71] On October 24, 2014, the New Hampshire Supreme Court effectively nullified the law and held that the wording of the statute does not allow defense attorneys to tell juries they can nullify a law.
In Alabama, judges had no restrictions on when they could override a jury's recommendation of a life sentence. [8] Judicial overrides amounted to more than 20 percent of all death sentences between 1981 and 2015 (101 out of 413), and half of exonerations due to innocence (3 out of 6).
In law, the right of peremptory challenge is a right in jury selection for the attorneys to reject a certain number of potential jurors without stating a reason. Other potential jurors may be challenged for cause, i.e. by giving a good reason why they might be unable to reach a fair verdict, but the challenge will be considered by the presiding judge and may be denied.
Strike for cause (also referred to as challenge for cause or removal for cause) is a method of eliminating potential members from a jury panel in the United States.. During the jury selection process, after voir dire, opposing attorneys may request removal of any juror who does not appear capable of rendering a fair and impartial verdict, in either determining guilt or innocence and/or a ...
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 ...
The Supreme Court of Canada in 2015 evolved the issue of a "representative right" in jury trials in the case of R. V. Kokopenance, [2015] SCR 28 wherein the Court held that "an accused is not entitled to a jury that includes members of their own race or religion; rather, they are only entitled to a fair and honest process of random jury selection".
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.