Our family and friends want an up-or-down vote on the President’s judicial nominees. To do otherwise is unconstitutional and political suicide.
JURY NULLIFICATION
Jury nullification is when a jury acquits a person of a crime, even though it is clear he committed the crime. Juries have the right to evaluate both the facts and the law in a court case. Jury nullification does not change the law. Jurors just refuse to apply the law in a particular case. Unfortunately, the courts do not agree with my thesis. Today the courts say that juries merely have the right to judge the facts. Only the judge has the right to interpret the law (Hoffman, Smith and Willis). I contend that this trend is contrary to the intent of the Founding Fathers.
Today we live in an age of judicial activism, or as some have called it, judicial tyranny. Thomas Jefferson wrote, “The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal judiciary…working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped” (Bergh 331-332). Judicial activism is contrary to the intent of the Founding Fathers. Therefore, I support the concept of jury nullification. This view holds that the trial jury has more power than Congress, the President, or even the Supreme Court. “This is because it (the trial jury) has the final veto power over all acts of the legislature that may come to be called laws” (Jurors’ Handbook). Jurors’ rights not only include an assessment of the facts, but an evaluation of the law itself.
Jurors have the right to judge both the facts and the law. The Supreme Court conducted a jury trial in the Case of the State of Georgia vs. Brailsford in 1794. Justice John Jay instructed the jury: “On questions of fact, it is the province of the jury; on questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes the reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy.”
There is a struggle between those who believe in juror activism and those who believe in judicial activism. The government does not like its laws vetoed by a jury. The courts seek to limit the power of juries in various ways. The jury selection process can be engineered to disqualify people who understand what jury nullification is all about. A couple of especially hard questions for those who understand and appreciate the political role of the jury are, “Will you follow the law as given, even if you disagree with it?” and/or “Have you read any material on the topic of jury nullification?”
Many believe that cultivating jury nullification is a mistake. “Unlike legislators or electors, jurors have no opportunity to investigate or research the merits of legislation” (King). “Some legal scholars, judges and business lawyers say that reining in juries is a necessity in an overloaded legal system. Others argue that juries must be controlled to limit excesses, and curb prejudices like hostility to big corporations” (Galberson).
The ultimate purpose of jury nullification is to reign in the abusive power of the judiciary. Therefore, I do not want our judicial system run exclusively by lawyers and judges, and I do not want to limit the role of juries. I believe that the eroding role of juries is contrary to the intent of the Founding Fathers. Juries have the right to evaluate both the facts and the law in a court case.
