Race Based Jury Nullification
Jury nullification can simply be defined as a jury who believes the defendant is guilty of the charges but for their own reasons have decided to hand out a non-guilty verdict. Jury nullification occurs when a criminal-trial jury refuses to convict a defendant despite proof of guilt because the jurors believe the law is unjust or is being unjustly applied. The reasons may involve the jurors view on “the unjustness of the law, injustice of its application, [or] the race of a party”. (Wikipedia, 2006). Famous cases like John Peter’s trial in 1735, Harriet Tubman, and Dr. Kevorkian are perfect examples (Linder, 2001). In addition cases involving terminally ill people charged with doing drugs are often times given leniency by nullification. Not only does the debate ensue around nullification but the debated heightens when it is believed to be race-based.
Race-based Nullification
What makes the race based jury nullification different? According to the Cato Policy Report, the nullification is based solely on the race of the defendant. A strong supporter of race-based jury nullification is a graduate from Yale with a J.D. from Harvard and is currently a law professor at George Washington University, Paul Butler. (George Washington University Law School, 2005) He is said to believe that “black juries should acquit black defendants for nonviolent offenses even when the evidence of guilt is clear” (Cato, 1999).
According to studies, 3 to 4 percent of jury criminal trials involve jury nullification. There is no way to prevent jury nullification because juries never can be ordered to convict or be punished for acquitting someone. Professor George Fletcher has said the term jury nullification is unfortunate and misleading, because it suggests that when the jury votes its conscience, it is always engaged in an act of disrespect toward the law. The acquittal, supposedly, nullifies the law. In place of the law, the jury interposes its own moral judgment or political preferences. The function of the jury as the ultimate authority on the law is not to ‘nullify’ the instructions of the judge, but to complete the law, when necessary, by recognizing principles of justification that go beyond the written law. It would be better if we abandon the phrase ‘jury nullification’ and spoke instead of the jury’s function in these cases of completing and perfecting the positive law recognized by the courts and the legislature.
Race Based Jury Nullification- The Pros
“Jury nullification of law”, as it is sometimes called, is 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 which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.” (Emal, 1996)
If jurors were supposed to judge “only the facts”, their job could be done by computer. It is precisely because people have feelings, opinions, wisdom, experience, and conscience that we depend upon jurors, not upon machines, to judge court cases. What about the old laws that are still in the book and have not been updated and are forgotten until they come up before the Court.
When it comes to race-based jury nullification, the same principles apply. The African-American, or Hispanic or whatever race applies, community should approach their work cognizant of its political nature and their prerogative to exercise their power in the best interests of their particular community. In every case, the juror should be guided by his or her view of what is just.
An opinion paper mentioned that all Black Americans should partake in race based jury nullification and that to do so would bring about changes in how the justice system handled minority cases (Jemal, 1997). Jemal also makes valid points supporting his belief in race-based jury nullification by stating “the system is designed to put blacks in jail for largely economic crimes while letting child molesters, rapist and murderers go free.” (1997). The effect of such noticeable differences takes its toll on the minorities and faith in justice from the system.
Race Based Jury Nullification- The Cons
After an all-white Minneapolis grand jury declined to bring charges against a white police officer in the fatal shooting of a black teenager, the ensuing protests prompted the County Attorney to convene a task force to address the problem. In 1992 the Hennepin County Task Force proposed racial quotas to insure that all county grand juries would have at least two self-identified “minority persons” included among their 23-member roster. (Alschuler, 1997)
Why is the above case an example of a community being against race based jury nullification? This community has decided to make sure that there is a quota that will insure that a verdict given by a jury cannot be denied based on the fact that the decision was made by an all minority jury. The community would be requiring that a certain number of minorities is on the jury to guarantee that there would not be any racial bias in the decision making process.
Judges routinely instruct jurors that they are not to determine the justness of the law in question, only whether the defendant is guilty of breaking it. Jurors also need to go into the jury room with the understanding that race has no place in the verdict of the case.
In addition, those who may support race based jury nullification have identified a few problems with it. One, it can be used for majority cases. A defendant with similar race jury members can be given the same freedom to nullify a case based on race and Black Americans do not think that is a good idea. (Jemal, 1997). It allows a criminal to go free just because of his or her race and though some support this nullification it is not favored for severe crimes. It is to focus on lesser crimes that target Black Americans, specifically drug crimes. So, to some, allowing a dangerous person to go free just because of their race and allowing white defendants to be nullified just as easily are great examples as to why some are against race based jury nullification.
Conclusion
Overall, race based jury nullification is a highly debatable issue whether for or against. Each argument has strong opinions and facts to support them as well as a variety of reasons. After thorough discussion our team came to the conclusion that race based jury nullification should not be conducted by jurors. We are not opposed to jury nullification as a whole, but when race in put into the equation we are opposed to nullification. Race based jury nullification does not promote community unity by any means. This thought process is simply racial and based on discrimination which as a society we are trying to educate individuals on how negative race based ideas can be. We are not stating that races should not be proud of who they are and promote what they stand for, but when a jury finds a defendant guilty or innocent simply based on race alone there is a problem. As we have continued to state, jurors need to base their verdicts on facts, information and evidence that is shown to them throughout any trial. Racial biased opinions need to be left at the door.
References
(n.d.). Retrieved Mar. 16, 2006, from Stupid Laws Web site: http://www.theaprils.com/tim/stupidlaws.html
Alschuler, A. (1997). Duke law journal. Retrieved Mar. 17, 2006, from Recent Law Review Articles of Interest Web site: http://www.apa.udel.edu/apa/archive/newsletters/v96n2/law/abstracts.asp
Cato. (1999). Jurors should know their rights. Retrieved on March 14, 2006,from
http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v21n1/jury.html
Emal, R. (1996). Jury nullification why you should know what it is. Retrieved Mar. 17, 2006, from http://www.greenmac.com/eagle/ISSUES/ISSUE23-9/07JuryNullification.html
George Washington University Law School. (2005). GW Law Profiles. Retrieved on
March 15, 2006, from http://www.law.gwu.edu/Faculty/profile.aspx?id=1723
Jemal. (1997). Race Based Jury Nullification: A Path To Equality! Retrieved on March 18, 2006, from
http://www.geocities.com/athens/olympus/1320/nullification.htm
Linder, D. (2001). Retrieved Mar. 16, 2006, from Jury Nullification Web site: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/zenger/nullification.html.
Scheflin, Alan W., (1999) California Bar Journal, Point Counter Point – Is it ever
proper for juries to ignore or reinterpret the law?, Retrieved March 12,
2006 from http://www.calbar.ca.gov/calbar/2cbj/99mar/page14-1.htm
Wikipedia. (2006). Jury Nullification. Retrieved on March 14, 2006, from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
