Jury nullification

EN Texte en anglais Pas encore d'article dans ta langue : extrait en anglais.

Jury nullification, also known as jury equity or as a perverse verdict, is a decision by the jury in a criminal trial resulting in a verdict of not guilty even though they believe a defendant has broken the law. The jury's reasons may include the belief that the law itself is unjust, that the prosecutor has misapplied the law in the defendant's case, that the punishment for breaking the law is too harsh, or general frustrations with the criminal justice system. It has been commonly used to oppose what jurors perceive as unjust laws, such as Amercian laws that once penalized runaway slaves under the Fugitive Slave Act, prohibited alcohol during Prohibition, or criminalized draft evasion during the Vietnam War. Some juries have also refused to convict due to their own prejudices in favor of the defendant. Such verdicts are possible because a jury has an absolute right to return any verdict it chooses. Nullification is not an official part of criminal procedure, but is the logical consequence of two rules governing the systems in which it exists: Jurors cannot be punished for the verdict they make. In many jurisdictions, a defendant who is acquitted cannot be tried a second time for the same offense. (At least by the exact same jurisdiction. In the United States, defendants can oftentimes be prosecuted by both the State, and Federal government for what is essentially the same crime under the separate sovereigns doctrine. See Gamble v. United States.) A jury verdict that is contrary to the letter of the law pertains only to the particular case before it; however, if a pattern of acquittals develops in response to repeated attempts to prosecute a particular offence, this can have the de facto effect of invalidating the law. Such a pattern may indicate public opposition...