The reason for including jury trials in the Constitution was the topic of conversation between Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson.
Jury nullification is the name given to the act of a jury in acquitting a defendant, despite having effectively violated the letter of the law to the satisfaction of the jury. As a result, the defendant is found not guilty, although without the jury’s nullification he would have been found guilty. In general, jury nullification is performed by a jury that disagrees with a law, as a way of showing their objection to the law and their choice not to punish the offender. Jury nullification is a powerful tool that citizens can use to clarify their views on the law and, over time, can have the effect of helping change the laws themselves.
The jury nullification process remains a controversial and contentious legal issue.
Technically, cases must be decided according to the wording of the law itself, or the letter of the law. A judge can often remind the jury that the issue at hand is not whether something is wrong or wrong, but whether the defendant actually committed the crime being described. In fact, however, jurors have the right, and some would argue their responsibility, to use their own judgment in deciding their verdict. It is, in fact, this introduction of human thought that is so central to the jury process. Jury nullification has often been responsible for many powerful rebuttals of unfair laws, but at the same time is open to abuses that can be seen as undermining fundamental rights.
The first Chief Justice, John Jay, favored a jury nullification.
In fact, juries were originally designed largely to ensure that the people who delivered the final verdict on a person’s innocence or guilt were not subject to outside interests, including a narrow interpretation of the law. It was believed that, over time, the law might drift away from its constitutional origins and become too mired in bureaucratic complexities to truly reflect its original intent. Jury nullification, therefore, can be seen as the original goal of juries, as exemplified in a statement to Thomas Paine by Thomas Jefferson, in which he observed: “I regard trial by jury as the only anchor devised by the man by which a government can stand on the principles of its constitution. The first chief justice, John Jay, was even clearer when he said: “The jury has the right to judge both the law and the fact in dispute.”
A jury that disagrees with a law can acquit a defendant, knowing that the defendant is guilty according to the law.
There are many famous examples of jury nullification in history, usually in cases where the law in question was considered unfair or had a broad dissenting faction. For example, during Prohibition, many juries exercised their right of jury nullification by finding those accused of smuggling not guilty, even though the facts showed that they had committed the crime. Similarly, abolitionist sympathizers often found a defendant innocent in cases of harboring runaway slaves, even if the evidence showed that they had harbored runaway slaves.
However, there is a lot of controversy surrounding jury nullification, with many people expressing concern that it could be used for racist or bigoted purposes. For example, in theory, a racist jury could find a defendant not guilty in a case in which he killed a minority victim, even if the evidence showed that he had committed the crime. Currently, there is some question as to whether a judge can remove a juror for cause if he attempts to use jury nullification, and whether he can even punish those who do not apply the law as written in a case.