Juries

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."

 

Professor Julian Heicklen and Jury Nullification

Here is an interesting article (the Illegality of Advocating for  Jury Nullification) written by two lawyers who suppport the federal government's effort to prosecute Professor Heicklen for jury tampering.  According to the authors of the article, Professor Heicklen crossed the line when he stood outside the federal courthouse in New York and handed 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."

For a defense of Professor Heicklen's actions go here.  For more background on the issue go here.

h/tip CourtroomLogic

Montana Debates Jury Nullification

This week the House Judiciary Committee of the Montana Legislature took on the issue of Jury Nullification in the form of Bill 332.  This legislation was introduced by State Representative Bob Wagner. Some might suggest that this bill was drafted in direct response to the near jury revolt that occurred last December in Missoula County, Montana.  As readers of this blog might recall, several jurors hearing a criminal drug case in the local courthouse informed the judge that they took issue with charging a defendant for possessing low-levels of marijuana.  This in turn made it difficult for the court to even sit a jury.  The defendant in that case eventually pled.

In sum, Bill 332 requires judges in criminal trials to:

(1) inform jurors that they may vote their conscience to acquit an accused in spite of technical guilt;

(2) provide jurors statutes and constitutions; and

(3) inform jurors about relevant sentences and sentencing ranges. 

The bill also allows parties in all jury trials to argue to the jurors that a law is unconstitutional or should be nullified.  In addition, parties can request that the court inform the jurors that they may judge both the facts and the law.  Not surprisingly, the debate over the legislation attracted a lot of attention (FIJA, Montana Human Rights Network,  Montana County Attorneys Association, and Montana Defense Trial Lawyers Association).