Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet
icon backReturn to Entries

Jury Nullification

Serving on a jury is considered to be a duty of all American citizens. Jury nullification exists when a jury ignores the facts presented in court, the legal aspects of the case, or both, and votes based on conscience, personal values and beliefs, or preconceived biases and prejudices. Through jury nullification, a jury has the power to bring about a verdict that is outside of what is expected or required by facts and law. This entry examines jury nullification by presenting it within the contexts of its history, race, ethnicity, and its future use in the criminal justice system.

History

In the initial stages of building the modern-day American criminal justice system, the concept of a “jury of peers” was introduced in the court system. This concept, still promoted today, was intended to ensure that a defendant would be judged fairly by presenting the case to a group of common citizens. These citizens are specifically not involved in the legal profession so as to be completely objective in the case at hand. The burden of proof is the responsibility of the prosecution, and the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. This type of trial is and continues to be a cornerstone of the American criminal justice system.

Jury nullification was adopted by Americans and used as early as the 17th century. Its use was originally based on the common law and British antecedents that viewed the role of the jury to include judging the law and the facts. If jurors believed a conviction was unjust, they were not compelled to convict. Throughout American history, jury nullification was considered a protective device for some citizens. During the 19th century, jury members sometimes used nullification in capital punishment and fugitive slave cases in the North. In 1895 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Spar f and Hansen v. United States that nullification was acceptable. Over time jury nullification, though rarely used, has received more attention. Several cases during the 1990s, including the trials of former Mayor Marion Barry and O. J. Simpson, raised issues regarding whether or not juries composed of minority members (e.g., African American, Latina/o), would be more likely to acquit a minority defendant regardless of the facts of the case presented in court.

Race and the Jury

Citizens that serve on juries are considered to be peers of the defendant. Systematic discrimination that occurred in the early stages of the evolution of criminal justice excluded both women and minorities from jury pools. In Strauder v. West Virginia (1880), the Supreme Court held that excluding Blacks violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, but this right was not systematically enforced until much later. In the 1940s, Congress approved of minorities serving on juries, even though it was much later when equal opportunity in jury duty actually occurred. Since the late 1960s, juries have become more representative of the communities and citizens they serve even though jury selection may not lead to equal representation if the jury pool is ethnically diverse. In some jurisdictions, minorities are still underrepresented in the jury pool and excluded during the voir dire. In others, where minorities are the majority of the population, the jury pool is predominantly minority.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Read next

More like this

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

close

Have you created a personal profile? Login or create a profile so that you can save clips, playlists and searches

close
close
close Signed In to profile You are signed in as:
close
Logged in Institution Institution