Jury nullification is the term for when a jury declines to convict a defendant despite overwhelming evidence of guilt. This can be a form of civil disobedience, a political statement against a specific law, or a show of empathy and support to the defendant.
“It’s not a legal defense sanctioned under the law,” said Cheryl Bader, associate professor of law at Fordham School of Law. “It’s a reaction by the jury to a legal result that they feel would be so unjust or morally wrong that they refuse to impose it, despite what the law says.”
One reason it exists is because there’s no way to force jurors to rule a certain way. Once jurors go into deliberation, what happens in that room stays in that room.
Taken to its logical conclusion, there’s nothing stopping a jury from voting unanimously either way. They could vote to convict a person they think is innocent (which happens, especially when used against minorities and especially during Jim Crow). They could vote “not guilty” for a person they think is guilty.
Oh boy, another opportunity to share a CGP Grey Video!
This one is on jury nullification, but all his videos are so awesome. Easily my most favorite content creator.
Cops can ignore. Prosecutors can decline. Judges can “sentence” to unconditional release.
The people can nullify.
Never thought I’d see a mainstream outlet discussing this. There’s less plausible deniability for potential jurors now
They can’t dismiss all the jury candidates…
Welcome to the United States of America, where the justice system is a cruel and unusual joke and only for the working class.
Lemmy’s not gonna like what I have to say, but jury nullification is simply not going to happen here. It will require the entire jury to agree, and as popular as this POV is here on Lemmy, I sincerely doubt you will be able to sneak 12 NYC jurors through jury selection that are inclined to do this. Maybe for some other non-violent crime, but not for walking up to a man in front of the Hilton and shooting him dead, no matter what his rationale is. They all walk down Sixth Avenue regularly, they’re not gonna all agree to hold this guy unaccountable for murder in broad daylight. (Particularly when they all mocked Trump for saying he could get away with it, one avenue over.)
Now, it is possible that one person might sneak on the jury who finds that Mangione is a sympathetic figure, and insists on not convicting him. But that is a different situation. When the jury is at a fundamental impasse and can’t agree on any verdict (a hung jury) the judge will order a new trial and they do it all over again. And, it’s also possible for Mangione to get let off entirely if the prosecutors are morons and make fundamental errors. (Case in point: Trump’s Georgia trial, where Trump managed to run out the clock due to the prosecution’s unforced errors). But if the evidence is really there, I really doubt 12 New Yorkers will agree and say “Yeah, he did it, but shouldn’t be punished for it”.
So what you’re saying is that you don’t believe Luigi will be the Kyle Rittenhouse of the left?
It also doesn’t have to be they all say he did it but don’t punish him, if someone is inclined to get nullification, they can also just push the reasonable doubt angle, poking holes in the prosecution’s case during jury deliberation that the prosecutor will then have no way to know to refute/defend against.
Did you read the article? From the article:
Jury nullification is the term for when a jury declines to convict a defendant despite overwhelming evidence of guilt. This can be a form of civil disobedience, a political statement against a specific law, or a show of empathy and support to the defendant.>
from NY Courts - Criminal Trial
In a jury trial, after all the testimony has been heard and all the evidence has been presented, the Jury is given instructions on the law by the Judge. The jury then goes to the jury room to deliberate, which means to look at and review all the evidence and testimony. The jury tries to make a decision on whether the defendant is guilty or innocent, which is called reaching a verdict. The verdict must be unanimous, meaning every juror must agree on the verdict. If they can’t all agree, this is called a hung jury, and the Judge will have to declare a mistrial. A mistrial does not mean that the case is over. After a mistrial, the prosecutor can choose to try the case again.>
That means as long as one juror refuses to give in to pressure to convict they can nullify. They don’t need 12. In other words jury nullification <> being found not guilty
You just found a source to support what the person you replied to said, but then questioned if they read the article as if they were incorrect in their statement? (I don’t know what the edits are)
It’s there for you to read. The article never said jury nullification needs 12 jurors to vote not guilty.
Nullification is when one or more jurors disregard the law or facts or both and vote for whatever outcome they want. That can end in an acquittal, a hung jury, or even a guilty.
For example, in a criminal case of involving an individual named Carlos Poree in NOLA, the trial defense was insanity. The jury voted guilty. When individually polled the jury admitted they thought he was insane at the time of the offense but would get out early if they voted that way. That case was sent back for the jury to either vote in favor of insanity or acquit.
Here is the NYT Link to get you started if you want to learn more.
The original post said nullification wouldn’t happen bc they would never get all the jurors to vote that way. Thats for acquittal by nullification. For a hung jury they don’t need all the jurors. Sure the DA could try again. This happened with Curtis Flowers in Mississippi
A hung jury, where they cannot reach an agreement on guilt. Can be retried with a new jury, and probably would be in this case.
Jury nullification, would be all jurors agreeing on a not guilty verdict. The case is over and cannot be retried.
I suppose that one out of twelve could hang the jury over and over and the trials would just continue forever if the prosecution kept deciding to retry it.
If all vote not guilty it’s called an acquittal.
Source: I have been a public defender in NYC for 15 years.
Right… And they would vote not guilty even though the guilt is obvious. Despite the evidence…
I have been penguine emperor of Iran for 38 year.
That’s literally the definition of jury nullification which is what this discussion is about.
Congrats on your reign btw. Sounds like a “Happy Feat”
… the things you quoted don’t back up your statement. You quoted:
If they can’t all agree, this is called a hung jury, and the Judge will have to declare a mistrial. A mistrial does not mean that the case is over. After a mistrial, the prosecutor can choose to try the case again.
If they don’t all agree, it’s a mistrial in NYS, and although he doesn’t get convicted right then and there, the State can try the case again. He is still in jeopardy,
unless he runs for President, I suppose. That would be a interesting turn. (nvm, he is only 26, and can’t run for President yet)The only way for him to be out of legal jeopardy is for all the jurors to agree to let him off. They can do that by agreeing that the State didn’t prove it’s case adequately enough. Jury Nullification is when the jury says “Yeah, the State proved he did it, but it doesn’t matter, it is in the best interests of Justice that he shouldn’t be punished”. And I really doubt you will get 12 New Yorkers to say that.
If that does happen, the State has very little recourse after that. They can’t try him again, and have extremely limited avenues for appeal. (But they can appeal: see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_notwithstanding_verdict). One key thing I get from that is that jurors still need to deliver a rationale for their verdict, even if they nullify. If they say “we find him not guilty because of that chisled jawline”, with no further justification, that may qualify to get overturned.
Luigi should announce his candidacy for the 2036 presidential election. Surely the completely unbiased justice system will give him the same leeway they gave trump.
To your last part, a judge can’t JNOV if the verdict was not guilty.
From that wiki :
A judge may not enter a JNOV of “guilty” following a jury acquittal in United States criminal cases. Such an action would violate a defendant’s Fifth Amendment right not to be placed in double jeopardy and Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury.
So if they jury annul, that’s the end, and there’s really no recourse for the state at that point.
Agree with everything else you said though.
If all vote not guilty it’s called an acquittal. If that happens, despite overwhelming evidence of guilt, it is jury nullification ending in an acquittal. If a mistrial happens, meaning the jury cannot reach a verdict, despite overwhelming evidence of guilt, it is jury nullification ending in a mistrial.
Source: I have been a public defender in NYC for 15 years.
Oh good, you actually know what you are talking about.
Quick question: when the jury renders a verdict, is is only “thumbs up/thumbs down”? Or do they need to give any justification? Can they flat out say “The evidence is overwhelming, but we find the defendant Not Guilty because he is oh, so pretty!” and have that stand up? Or do they simply say “Not Guilty” and we never find out why?
This is New York State specific. When the verdict is announced the jury foreperson announces it in open court after it is shown to the presiding judge. At that point the defense Alan request to poll the individual jurors. Occasionally, there is a discrepancy.
Jury deliberations are secret prior to the verdict being announced. Once announced jurors are free to say whatever they want but cannot be compelled.
Jury nullification is the term for when a jury declines to convict a defendant despite overwhelming evidence of guilt.
Jury refers to the twelve. If any one could nullify them it would say juror.
If they can’t all agree, this is called a hung jury, and the Judge will have to declare a mistrial. A mistrial does not mean that the case is over. After a mistrial, the prosecutor can choose to try the case again.
I assume you read the last word of that sentence? If there’s a hung jury then prosecutors can just bring it to trial again, as there was no jeopardy with the first case, as the jury never reached a unanimous decision.
So jury nullification is equal to a not guilty verdict. It’s just that the jury has deemed that while technically guilty they shouldn’t be punished for what they did. With jury nullification the defendant can’t be tried again, compared to a mistrial where they can.
If all vote not guilty it’s called an acquittal. If that happens, despite overwhelming evidence of guilt, it is jury nullification ending in an acquittal. If a mistrial happens, meaning the jury cannot reach a verdict, despite overwhelming evidence of guilt, it is jury nullification ending in a mistrial.
Source: I have been a public defender in NYC for 15 years.
paywalled
Wasn’t for me. Regional maybe?
