Replies

is the one most consistent with the average American's view of how the law should work. It corresponds to the instructions given to every potential juror, i.e., base your decision on what the law says, not on what you think it should say.

Not trying to pick nits here, Steve, but that is NOT what the Founders intended when they gave juries the power of nullification-

_________________________________________________________

SAMUEL CHASE (Justice, U. S. Supreme Court and signer of the Declaration of Independence; in 1804):
"The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts."

_________________________________________________________

U.S. v. DOUGHERTY, 473 F.2d. 1113, 1139 (1972):
"The pages of history shine on instances of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge...."

_________________________________________________________

LORD DENMAN, (in C.J. O'Connel v. R. ,1884):
"Every jury in the land is tampered with and falsely instructed by the judge when it is told it must take (or accept) as the law that which has been given to them, or that they must bring in a certain verdict, or that they can decide only the facts of the case."

_________________________________________________________

Any time a judge 'instructs' a jury as to how the should find is violating the defendant's right to due process...specifically the 6th Amendment right to an 'impartial' jury.

Jury nullification is a side issue that I probably shouldn't have opened; for my part, it is not something that I am at all comfortable with. The closest examples of jury nullification that I can think of are the O.J. case and the Susan McDougal case, in which people who were clearly guilty got away with their crimes. These were not jury nullification per se, but came close to it. I think jury nullification is one step away from anarchy.