I’ve been reading a lot about jury nullification, and I get that jurors have the power to acquit someone even if the law technically says they’re guilty. But what I don’t get is—why is this something that exists, yet courts don’t allow it to be talked about during a trial?
If it’s a legitimate part of the legal system, why is it treated like a secret? Would a juror get in trouble for mentioning it during deliberations? And what would happen if someone brought it up during jury selection?
I’m just curious how this all works in practice. If jurors can ultimately do whatever they want, what stops them from using nullification all the time?
“Jury Nullification” does not “exist” (as in, its not really part of the law), its merely the term we use to describe the logical consequence of the two facts:
When a jury renders a “not guilty” verdict, its final and cannot be overturned (in most of the countries today that uses juries)
The jurors cannot be punished for making the “wrong” verdict
Therefore, a Juror could just… refuse to convict even if theres overwhelming evidence. So the juror thinks the defendent is guilty, but gives the verdict of “not guilty”. That is what we call “Jury Nullification”.
Examples:
Abolitionists refusing to convict escaped slaves.
White supremacists refuse to convict mobs who lynched innocent black people.
See that’s the issue, it could be used for good, but could also be used for evil.
Once you mention it in the jury instructions, the likelihood of jury nullification goes up.
As to why they aren’t supposed to do that, its because they are supposed to be judges of facts, not judge of law (aka: they have to decide solely on the evidence, and should not decide on things like constitutionality of the law or morals/ethics, its in the Juror Instructions to judge only on the facts. But there’s nothing stopping a juror from just silently ignoring those instructions. Judges are not mindreaders.
They just can’t talk about it, because it would be contempt of court (since they’d be going against juror instructions), at least until deliberations begin, once that happens, (as far as I know) I think they could talk about it, but I’m not sure if the judge could declare a mistrial if they find out. But in order to do a jury nullification, all the jurors (if the trial is in the USA) would have to agree to vote “not guilty” anyways as jury decisions need to be unanimous, and if they all agree to just ignore the evidence, nobody would be snitching to the judge, so the judge wouldn’t know anyways. (Jury Deliberation proceedings happens in secret amongst the jurors).
You just avoid mentioning Jury Nullification. Try to get on the jury, then in deliberations, try to sow doubts on the evidence. Remember: you need everyone to agree on the verdict, or else its a hung jury and there will be a new jury chosen for a new trial, and the prosecution can keep trying forever until a verdict had been reached (or the prosecution gives up, or the judge dismisses the case with prejudice).
Use phrases like:
“Are we sure this is the perpetrator?”
“What if the prosecution is wrong?”
“Maybe they caught the wrong person?”
“This evidence looks suspicious to me”
“I think the defendent is being framed”
etc…
Try to hide the fact thay you are trying to use jury nullification
I’m not sure if you can talk about it after deliberations begin (I am not a lawyer), but if you are desparate to get the unaninimity to acquit, you could just out yourself and be like: “Are we really gonna convict this person? The victim deserved it!” (Again, I am not a lawyer, this could get you in trouble if a juror snitches on you).