Description of the legal term Jury Nullification:
Jury nullification occurs when a jury returns a verdict of “Not Guilty” despite its belief that the defendant is guilty of the violation charged. This may happen when the jury disagrees with the law the defendant has been charged under, or believes that the law ought not to be applied in that particular case. It essentially allows the jury to serve as a final check against the possible misuse or abuse of government power by permitting citizens to acquit their fellow citizens despite evidence of guilt.
This concept is rooted in the fundamental tenet that a jury is the ultimate arbiter of fact. While judges instruct juries on the applicable law, juries determine the facts of the case. The verdict in a criminal trial is therefore not always a straightforward reflection of the legal interpretation, but it can also be an expression of the jury’s stance on the morality or fairness of the law or its enforcement. This reflects the jury’s role as a vehicle for community values and conscience.
The legal framework in Britain acknowledges the jury’s absolute power to acquit, highlighting that it cannot be challenged or overturned due to reasons of jury reasoning. However, the doctrine does not grant a jury the formal power to nullify law; rather, it arises from the traditional arrangement of the legal system where jurors cannot be punished for their verdict and verdicts (other than some cases of corruption) cannot be questioned.
While judges in England and Wales cannot direct a jury to acquit a defendant, they can direct a jury to convict if there is no evidence to support the defence’s case, an action known as a ‘directed verdict’. This, however, does not limit the jury’s nullification powers as they still can choose to acquit if they see fit.
Despite its power, jury nullification is rare and typically discouraged. Judges often instruct juries to apply the law as it is and not to decide which laws to follow. Nevertheless, it remains an important aspect of the jury system allowing a voice to societal views and acting as a safeguard against potential governmental overreach or unjust laws.
Legal context in which the term Jury Nullification may be used:
An example of the application of jury nullification can be found in cases involving the medical use of prohibited substances. Imagine a situation where the defendant, a terminally ill patient, is charged with possession of a class A drug after being found with a medicine derived from cannabis, which they claim is the only effective palliative remedy for their condition. The prosecution presents incontrovertible evidence that the defendant possessed the substance and that such action is illegal. However, the jury, sympathizing with the defendant‘s plight and disagreeing with the strict application of drug laws in such circumstances, may choose to acquit, thereby nullifying the legal implications of the evidence presented.
Another scenario where it has been witnessed is in politically charged cases. Consider a protestor charged with minor property damage during a demonstration against a deeply unpopular law. The evidence is clear, and the act of vandalism was technically a breach of the law. Nonetheless, the jury members, who may share the public’s sentiment or feel that the prosecution of such protestors is a heavy-handed response, might acquit the protestor, sending a significant signal to the authorities about the public’s discontent with the current law or its enforcement.
The importance of this legal mechanism in British jurisprudence lies in its ability to permit ordinary citizens on a jury to infuse the rigid application of law with common sense, humanity, and the moral judgment of the community. While judges are the guardians of law, juries are the guardians of justice, and in some cases, these roles require a delicate balance that allows for the law to bend in the service of equity. It is a reminder that legal systems are designed to serve society, and at times, the letter of the law must yield to the spirit of justice.