Judge Rules That Advocating Jury Nullification Is Not a Crime

[soonerwings]

Can you offer any anecdotal evidence that anyone has ever been convicted due to jury nullification? I ask because in every case I've ever heard or read about, the result was a refusal to convict a defendant because to do so would be a miscarriage of justice.

Is it even possible for jury nullification to convict someone? The defendant is charged with violating a law and thus finds him/herself in court. If he/she weren't charged with violation of a law, there would be nothing to nullify. If the jury votes guilty isn't a simple affirmation of the charges rather than any sort of nullification?

 

[donner]

Can you offer any anecdotal evidence that anyone has ever been convicted due to jury nullification? I ask because in every case I've ever heard or read about, the result was a refusal to convict a defendant because to do so would be a miscarriage of justice.

I'm still looking, but i honestly don't know if it exists.

After some quick research i found someone who argues that the original OJ verdict was a form of jury nullification. I guess i'm just worried that, while it does serve a larger purpose as a check by the individual on the government, it can also be easily manipulated as a tool that it wasn't intended for. I.e. convincing 12 people that the cops were racist could have led them to disregard their duty to weigh in on the merits of the law.

 

[Glocktogo]

I'm still looking, but i honestly don't know if it exists.

After some quick research i found someone who argues that the original OJ verdict was a form of jury nullification. I guess i'm just worried that, while it does serve a larger purpose as a check by the individual on the government, it can also be easily manipulated as a tool that it wasn't intended for. I.e. convincing 12 people that the cops were racist could have led them to disregard their duty to weigh in on the merits of the law.

True jury nullification can only have the effect of nullifying the law itself, not the evidence of the case. When a jury fails to convict because they don't acknowledge the evidence in the case, it usually means that the defense was successful in either mitigating the effect of the evidence to a level below "beyond a reasonable doubt", or impact the credibility of the prosecution (Mark Furman in the OJ case). This is simply an effective defense. In the event a jury decided to convict a person maliciously and in contradiction to the evidence in the case, a judge may set the jury verdict aside and issue a directed verdict for acquittal. The judge cannot set aside an acquittal, only a guilty verdict.