Jury Nullification and Race
Those in favor of jury nullification believe that it should take place for a variety of reasons, despite feelings of the opposing party. Instead, supporters feel that jurors should be informed to the amount of power carried when it may become necessary to override an unreasonable conviction. It is believed that jurors are put in place as a check and balance system, in which the information is used to protect against government dictatorship. In addition, juries add additional protection against unfair prosecutions (American Judicature Society, 2004).
In opposition, many feel that jury nullification is one of many flaws contained within our justice system. Many feel that having the capability to nullify allows randomly chosen jurors to enact laws based on their own views, rather than policies designed by legislators. In addition, it reflects the old adage “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” reflecting beliefs that the system has worked well for centuries without nullification so why change it. On a final note, the opposing party trusts that jury nullification is inconsistent with the objective of the justice system, showing conflicting results among similar cases based on preferences of the jurors themselves (American Judicature Society, 2004).
In discussing the pros of jury nullification it is important to understand the concept was a safe guard included in our constitution to prevent overzealous authorities from acting outside the boundaries of the constitution. In a 1995 article for the Mendocino College Eagle, Russ Emal describes it as, “a traditional American right defended by the Founding Fathers. Those patriots intended that the jury serve as one of the tests a law must pass through before it assumes enough popular authority to be enforced. Our constitutional designers saw to it that each enactment of law must pass the scrutiny of these tribunals before it gains the authority to punish those who choose to violate any written law. Thomas Jefferson said, “I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by whom a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.” (Emal 1995). Simply put jury nullification provides responsible citizens with the opportunity and right to act in accordance with their moral judgment and conscience to determine the fairness of charges preferred by a government entity. Although many assert jury nullification can lead to anarchy Joan Biskupuc, in an article originally posted in the Washington Post quotes “Houston lawyer Clay S. Conrad, author of a new book defending jury nullification, asserts that it is not “anarchist.” For the average citizen, he says, nullification is an effective way of countering prosecutorial abuse and limiting the power and intrusiveness of the legislature.”(Internet source 1)
Alan W. Scheflin a professor of law at Santa Clara University School of Law describes jury nullification as “the refusal of the jury to convict a defendant if, acting as the conscience of the community under the United States Supreme Court’s formulation in Duncan v. Louisiana, the jury believes it unjust to apply the law as written to the facts of the case. In short, the jury exercises its discretion for mercy by saying that it would be wrong to stigmatize the defendant as a criminal in that particular case.” (Internet source 2). In light of controversial topics such as three strike laws, the drug war and racial disparity within our prisons race based jury nullification may very well present the tool required to negate the effects of race neutral legislation which inadvertently results in racial disparity. The stigmatism of a felony conviction effectively inhibits an individuals ability for gainful employment, housing and further impedes reintroduction to society and the “conscience of society” would be better served in the hands of individual citizens rather than agenda oriented officials.
When a group of people decide the fate of another, as in a jury trial, there is always the potential for bad decision making. The judge’s job is to apply the law and the jury’s job is to decide if based on the evidence, a reasonable person would consider the defendant guilty. In certain cases, a situation can arise where the jury can ignore the law and declare the defendant not guilty even though the evidence points to wrong doing on the part of the defendant.
When this happens, in some cases it can be a good thing if the motive is right. If the jury thinks the law is bad, then it can acquit a person of wrongdoing based on a moral principle. But what if nullification takes place for the wrong reason? The text makes reference to a law professor’s comment that “racially based jury nullification” is necessary and that juries should not convict non-violent African Americans “regardless of the evidence”. The reason given is that the prisons are already full of African Americans and more should not be incarcerated. (Walker, S., Spohn, C. & Delone, M. (2004, p. 195).
This is a subversion of the intent of the concept of jury nullification. To advise someone to intentionally acquit without even considering the governing moral principal or evidence is an abuse of jury nullification. To make a point of nullifying solely on the basis of race is not seeking justice; rather it is seeking a way to get back at a system that ethnic minorities in America feel is treating them unfairly.
If the jury is able to nullify a conviction solely based on a feeling and not on facts, then the whole process becomes suspect. This is why some juries are never told about their right to nullify a defendant’s wrongdoing. If the jury is not made aware of this practice in all cases, then it should not be an option in any cases. The rule of law should take precedence over the feelings of a few people.
In response to the question of whether or not our team was for or against jury nullification we felt that it is a part of the criminal justice system, and while it has its flaws, we are in support of it. Not all cases will result in poor decisions being made, because of race or because the jurors decided to vote rebelliously. The main reason we stand behind the use of jury nullification is because it is in fact a protected right. While all factors including evidence and testimony should be taken into account when deciding the fate of a case, the right exists for a reason. Of course in the wrong hands jury nullification can be dangerous. This is especially true in cases which the jurors sympathize with the defendant because of feelings of repression or discrimination. This is not a valid reason to use jury nullification.
As mentioned before, the right to use jury nullification is protected under the sixth amendment. The sixth amendment protects the jury’s decision from being overturned by the judge. This is especially true even if the defendant has admitted on the stand, under oath that they did in fact commit the crime in question. (lawandliberty.org). The use of jury nullification when used in cases of race can be seen one of two ways. The first is that the jurors were able to vote their conscience, which may seemingly undermine the law. In cases in which the defendant is African American and the jurors decide that because the defendant is of that particular race we have to question if the jurors are freeing an innocent person, or a guilty person to empower their race.
The second way jury nullification can be used is when it is to seek power for a sense of racial unity. We cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that jury nullification occurs within the court system. The officers who were accused of beating Rodney King were acquitted. Was this a form of jury nullification in action? The fact that the jurors were primarily white, as were the officers, we must understand that race does play a significant part in whether or not a person will go free. (Court.TV.com) The OJ Simpson case, a highly scrutinized case in which overwhelming evidence proved a guilty defendant had committed murder.
However, the primarily African American jury did not base their decision based upon the evidence, but merely their conscience, as people who have most likely felt the wrath of discrimination in America. The problem with jury nullification is the lasting impact we will face as we feel that we have to “get one up on each other.” This mentality is corrupt and because of it, Robert Blake was able to murder his wife and walk away a free man. Robert Blake had a jury composed of primarily white people. (Court TV.com) The main concern is, when will we stop fighting for those of our own race, and let justice be served, regardless of the color of the persons skin?
To briefly review, both sides of jury nullification have been discussed. It is up to the juror, and of course the reader to draw the conclusion to which suits them best. There will always be the chance of a jury who decides to nullify the decision because of empathetic feelings towards the defendant. While in other cases many juries utilize the instruction of the judge along with evidence and testimony. It comes down to what suits the jury and of course what they feel is best for their consciences.
