Juries

Jury Nullification and Comparative Negligence: New Law Review Article

Eli Best and John J. Donohue, Jury Nullification in Modified Comparative Negligence Regimes,  79 U. Chi. L. Rev. 945

Abstract: 
This paper analyzes jury findings from nearly one thousand negligence suits to determine whether juries in modified comparative negligence jurisdictions apportion percentages of  negligence differently than juries in pure comparative negligence jurisdictions. We find that juries in modified comparative negligence jurisdictions are substantially less likely to find that a plaintiff was more than 50% negligent.  This evidence of jury manipulation strengthens the case for pure comparative negligence, which we argue is already superior on theoretical and policy grounds.

 

NH Juror Discusses Jury Nullification

Below is an article that discusses how a NH jury arrived at its decision to nullify the verdict in a felony marijuana case.  The article is written from the point of view of one of the jurors who sat on the case.  As some are aware, NH recently passed a law allowing attorneys to inform jurors about their right to nullify.

Free Keene: EXCLUSIVE: Juror in Cannabis Nullification Case Speaks Out!

Jury Nullification: New Law Review Article

Adrien Leavitt, Queering Jury Nullification: Using Jury Nullification as a Tool to Fight Against the Criminalization of Queer and Transgender People, 10 Seattle J. Soc. Just. 709 (2012).

 

Juror Nullification

Lately, there has been an increase in the number of potential jurors questionning the prosecution of certain cases. I am not talking about the recent acquittals of John Edwards or Roger Clemens. Rather, I am speaking more about the growing trend of juror nullification, especially in cases involving small amounts of drugs. The issue has been the subject of reason legislation and in the news here, here and most recently here.

Jury Nullification: New Law Review Article

Jonathan Bressler, Reconstruction and the Transformation of Jury Nullification, 78 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1133 (2011)

Abstract: This Article (1) responds to what is an emerging consensus among these commentators that the Supreme Court’s prohibition of jury nullification cannot be justified on originalist or historical grounds and (2) provides new evidence of how the Fourteenth Amendment’s Framers, ratifiers, original interpreters, and original enforcers thought about juries, evidence that differs from the traditional perspective that the Reconstruction Congresses intended to empower juries. It finds that the Reconstruction Congresses understood the Fourteenth Amendment not to incorporate against the states the jury’s historic right to nullify, even as it incorporated a general right to jury trial. On the contrary, Reconstruction Republicans understood jury nullification to be incompatible with new constitutional rights they were charged with protecting in the former Confederate states and in the Utah Territory. In what was then among the most significant revolutions in federal jury law, Reconstruction Republicans supported legislation that would purge en masse from criminal juries Southern and Mormon would-be nullifiers—even some prospective jurors who plausibly believed that a federal criminal statute was unconstitutional.

Federal Juror Nullification Case Update

Here is the link to Judge Kimba Wood's order dismissing the jury tampering charges against Professor (retired) Julian Heicklen.

 

Federal Juror Nullification Case Dismissed

This was the right decision.  For prior posts on this issue go here and here.

NY Times: Case Against Jury-Nullification Advocate Is Dismissed

The Latest on the Prosecution of Prof. Julian P. Heicklen (Juror Nullification)

To read previous posts on this case go here.

Washington Post: Government lawyer defends prosecution of NY jury nullification ...

‎A government lawyer on Wednesday vigorously defended the prosecution of a man who urges jurors to sometimes disregard the law and vote their conscience, calling him a “significant threat” to the integrity of the judicial system...to continue reading go here.

Jury Nullification Bill Passes NH Senate

Boston Globe: NH Senate votes to allow juries to overturn law

‎Concord Monitor: Senate to take up jury nullification legislation

‎

More on the Prosecution of Julian P. Heicklen

Last week, I had a post discussing an article which favored the prosecution of Professor Julian P. Heicklen for jury tampering.  Today, Professor Paul Butler, a long time advocate of jury nullifcation in cases involving low-level non-violent drug offenses, has written an Op-Ed in the New York Times defending the actions of  Professor Heicklen.  As some may recall, Professor Heicklen is being prosecuted for jury tampering because he stood outside a federal courthouse in New York handing out pamphlets with the following language.

The judge will instruct the jury that it must uphold the law as he gives it. He will be lying. The jury must judge the law as well as the facts.

Juries were instituted to protect citizens from the tyranny of the government. It is not the duty of the jury to uphold the law. It is the jury's duty to see that justice is done....

Once on a jury, must I use the law as given by the judge, even if I think it's a bad law, or wrongly applied?

The answer is "No. You are free to vote on the verdict according to your conscience."