C
CPA2
Guest
Jury Power
Trial by jury has a long lineage. The Constitution and Bill of Rights guarantees trial by jury no less than three times (Conrad, 1999). Article III Section 2 guarantees citizens accused of a crime a trial by jury. The Sixth Amendment guarantees that the trial will take place in the same district that the crime was committed. The Founding Fathers also guarantee trial by jury in civil cases where more than $20 is involved (Conrad, 1999).
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 (Conrad, 1999).”
Jurors have the power to nullify bad laws. “Amendment VII of the Constitution guarantees that jury verdicts which nullify laws cannot be reviewed and the Supreme Court has affirmed this (Silveira, 2001).” A jury acquittal is final. Jurors are free to vote their conscience because they cannot be prosecuted for their verdict.
“Jury nullification is when a jury acquits a person of a crime, even though it’s clear he committed the crime, because the jurors feel there are extenuating circumstances, or because they feel the law is unjust, or because the sentence will be too harsh, or because they feel the law is applied unfairly (Silveira, 2001).” Jury nullification does not change the law. Jurors just refuse to apply the law in a particular case.
The ultimate purpose of jury nullification is to reign in the abusive power of the government. Judge Thomas Wiseman said, “Congress is not yet an infallible body incapable of passing tyrannical laws (Conrad, 1999).” Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson believed that the role of government is an umpire, not a participant (Friedman, 1990).
Jury nullification would be particularly useful in administrative law where a government agency charges an individual with a crime. The IRS is an example of a government agency that is both judge and jury. If the IRS charges a citizen with tax fraud, the author thinks that a citizen should have the right to request a trail by jury. Trial by jury would have a sobering effect on IRS tactics, as reported in recent years.
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 (Fully Informed Jury Association, 2002)?’”
Another tactic is to limit the number of trials with juries. Only 4.3 per cent of federal criminal charges are now ending in jury verdicts, down from 10.4 percent in 1988. Federal civil cases resolved by juries dropped from 5.4 percent in 1962 to 1.5 percent in 2000 (Glaberson, 2001).
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, 1999). “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, 2001).”
Those who seek salvation by law from a strong government may not be aware of the law of unintended consequences. Milton Friedman (1990), winner of the Nobel Prize in economics, said it best. “An individual who intends only to serve the public interest by fostering government intervention is ‘led by an invisible hand to promote’ private interests, ‘which was no part of his intention.’”
The author does not want our judicial system run by lawyers and judges, and he does not want to limit the role of juries. The author believes that the eroding role of juries is contrary to the intent of the Founding Fathers. To remedy the eroding role of juries, the author supports a constitutional amendment to inform all jurors of their Constitutional right to nullify the law.
References
A citizens’ guide to jury duty. Jurors’ Handbook. Retrieved February 18, 2002 from the World Wide Web: fija.org/juror-handbook.htm
Conrad, C. S. (1999, May 24). Juries nullifying unjust laws. Insight on the News. Retrieved February 18, 2002 from the World Wide Web: findarticles.com/cf_0/m1571/19_15/54736559/print.jhtml
Conrad, C. S. (1999, November). Jury nullification: Jurors flex their muscles. USA Today.
Frequently asked questions. Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA). Retrieved February 18, 2002 from the World Wide: fija.org/faq.htm
Friedman, M., & Friedman, R. D. (1990). Free to Choose. New York: Harcourt, Inc.
Glaberson, W. (2001, May 2). Juries, their powers under siege, find their role is being eroded. The New York Times, p. A.1
Silveira, J. (2001, September). The coming American Dictatorship part VI. Backwoods Home Magazine.
Trial by jury has a long lineage. The Constitution and Bill of Rights guarantees trial by jury no less than three times (Conrad, 1999). Article III Section 2 guarantees citizens accused of a crime a trial by jury. The Sixth Amendment guarantees that the trial will take place in the same district that the crime was committed. The Founding Fathers also guarantee trial by jury in civil cases where more than $20 is involved (Conrad, 1999).
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 (Conrad, 1999).”
Jurors have the power to nullify bad laws. “Amendment VII of the Constitution guarantees that jury verdicts which nullify laws cannot be reviewed and the Supreme Court has affirmed this (Silveira, 2001).” A jury acquittal is final. Jurors are free to vote their conscience because they cannot be prosecuted for their verdict.
“Jury nullification is when a jury acquits a person of a crime, even though it’s clear he committed the crime, because the jurors feel there are extenuating circumstances, or because they feel the law is unjust, or because the sentence will be too harsh, or because they feel the law is applied unfairly (Silveira, 2001).” Jury nullification does not change the law. Jurors just refuse to apply the law in a particular case.
The ultimate purpose of jury nullification is to reign in the abusive power of the government. Judge Thomas Wiseman said, “Congress is not yet an infallible body incapable of passing tyrannical laws (Conrad, 1999).” Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson believed that the role of government is an umpire, not a participant (Friedman, 1990).
Jury nullification would be particularly useful in administrative law where a government agency charges an individual with a crime. The IRS is an example of a government agency that is both judge and jury. If the IRS charges a citizen with tax fraud, the author thinks that a citizen should have the right to request a trail by jury. Trial by jury would have a sobering effect on IRS tactics, as reported in recent years.
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 (Fully Informed Jury Association, 2002)?’”
Another tactic is to limit the number of trials with juries. Only 4.3 per cent of federal criminal charges are now ending in jury verdicts, down from 10.4 percent in 1988. Federal civil cases resolved by juries dropped from 5.4 percent in 1962 to 1.5 percent in 2000 (Glaberson, 2001).
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, 1999). “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, 2001).”
Those who seek salvation by law from a strong government may not be aware of the law of unintended consequences. Milton Friedman (1990), winner of the Nobel Prize in economics, said it best. “An individual who intends only to serve the public interest by fostering government intervention is ‘led by an invisible hand to promote’ private interests, ‘which was no part of his intention.’”
The author does not want our judicial system run by lawyers and judges, and he does not want to limit the role of juries. The author believes that the eroding role of juries is contrary to the intent of the Founding Fathers. To remedy the eroding role of juries, the author supports a constitutional amendment to inform all jurors of their Constitutional right to nullify the law.
References
A citizens’ guide to jury duty. Jurors’ Handbook. Retrieved February 18, 2002 from the World Wide Web: fija.org/juror-handbook.htm
Conrad, C. S. (1999, May 24). Juries nullifying unjust laws. Insight on the News. Retrieved February 18, 2002 from the World Wide Web: findarticles.com/cf_0/m1571/19_15/54736559/print.jhtml
Conrad, C. S. (1999, November). Jury nullification: Jurors flex their muscles. USA Today.
Frequently asked questions. Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA). Retrieved February 18, 2002 from the World Wide: fija.org/faq.htm
Friedman, M., & Friedman, R. D. (1990). Free to Choose. New York: Harcourt, Inc.
Glaberson, W. (2001, May 2). Juries, their powers under siege, find their role is being eroded. The New York Times, p. A.1
Silveira, J. (2001, September). The coming American Dictatorship part VI. Backwoods Home Magazine.