Jury Nullification

The American criminal trial system rests in part on the premise that juries find the facts, after which they apply the law given them by the trial judge. If the accused is factually guilty under the legal instructions given them by the judge, the jury should—but need not—render a verdict of “guilty.” On the other hand, if the facts do not prove the defendant guilty (beyond a reasonable doubt), the jury must acquit—that is, render a verdict of “not guilty.” At its most general level, jury nullification occurs whenever a jury acquits where they believe the defendant is guilty. In such a case, it may be concluded that the jury exercised its right to “nullify”—to return a verdict of “not guilty” notwithstanding its belief in the defendant's factual guilt.

Several questions surround this doctrine of nullification, each of which is taken up in the sections to follow. First, why would a jury want to acquit a guilty defendant? After all, by doing so the jury sets a guilty person free. Second, when and how did nullification arise—is it a recent development, or one rooted in American history? Third, to what extent do courts tolerate this practice—do juries really have the power to nullify laws, and if so, what are the limits of this power? Last, does the doctrine have any “real-life” implications, or is it simply a matter debated among legal scholars?

Ultimately, the importance of the doctrine of jury nullification—and the controversy concerning it—have little to do with the frequency with which it is applied. Even the most ardent advocates of the doctrine concede [Page 960]that it does not happen very often. Rather, “jury nullification” is important because it reflects fundamental differences of opinion about the role of citizens in the American democratic republic. In order to understand why this is true, it is necessary to first address the questions posed above.