|
I usually incorrectly call Jury Nullification by the name
of "Fully Informed Juries" or by the name of the group
that pushes "Jury Nullification" which is the
"Fully Informed Jury Association".
While I may be calling it the wrong name in any case the goal is to let juries acquit guilty people when the laws are unjust. Something that was true when slavery was legal, or in the days when the Prohibition made liquor illegal. And now in the middle of the insane and unconstitutional American "war on drugs". Federal Law6th AmendmentSourceIn all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. ExecptionsDocument how the Feds have said that the 6th Amendment doesn't apply to people who are arrested for crimes that have sentences of 6 months or less in jail.Arizona LawWho can serve on a jurySourceAll U.S. citizens are qualified for jury service if they are at least 18 years old, are residents of the jurisdiction in which they have been summoned to serve, have had their civil rights restored if previously convicted of a felony, and have not been determined by a court to be mentally incompetent or insane. Your right to a jury trialSource23. Trial by jury; number of jurors specified by law Section 23. The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate. Juries in criminal cases in which a sentence of death or imprisonment for thirty years or more is authorized by law shall consist of twelve persons. In all criminal cases the unanimous consent of the jurors shall be necessary to render a verdict. In all other cases, the number of jurors, not less than six, and the number required to render a verdict, shall be specified by law. Jury Nullification is Illegal???Let's assume that I am wrong and that "jury nullification" is illegal.What can a judge or the government do to you when you think that the law is unjust, unfair or unconstitutional and you as a juror vote to acquit a person you think is guilty. Well the answer to that question is: Absolutely nothing!!!!
Jury Nullification is legal???
Jury Nullification in Arizona Marijuana Cases Posted on January 11, 2012 by Gregg R. Woodnick, PLLC Many of you may know William Penn as the man on the Quaker Oats packaging. Some of you may also know him as the founder of the State of Pennsylvania. What you may not know is that in 1670, William Penn was put on trial in London for soapboxing his Quaker principles. Why do we care about a case that happened 300 years ago in England? Well what if I told you that because of that case, a jury can now say, “forget the law” and make their own decisions on your innocence. Yes, even if two officers in Scottsdale, Arizona caught you with a joint, a jury of your peers could still find you ‘not guilty’ of drug possession. How is that possible you ask? The answer is jury nullification. Jury nullification allows the jury to acquit the defendant even when the government has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. It is not a surprise that prosecutors do not want you to know that you have this right. Some Arizona courts have even gone as far as to downplay the power of this right by saying, “while jury nullification is a fact of our jurisprudential process, anarchy would result from instructing the jury that it may ignore the requirements of the law.” The reality is that our legal system has jury nullification written in plain language for all to see, but the common juror does not even know about it, and the government isn’t losing sleep over that. In a recent article in The New York Times, George Washington University law professor Paul Butler advocates the importance of jury nullification. “If you are ever on a jury in a marijuana case, I recommend that you vote ‘not guilty’—even if you think the defendant actually smoked pot, or sold it to another consenting adult. As a juror, you have this power under the Bill of Rights; if you exercise it, you become part of a proud tradition of American jurors who helped make our laws fairer.” It is no secret that throughout the court system, especially in Arizona, marijuana cases are clogging up the docket and creating unnecessary burdens on those involved in the case. In Arizona, first time possession of marijuana cases are offered TASC/Diversion. This gives the possessor the opportunity to avoid a felony conviction if they participate in drug treatment. Obviously there is a debate over whether casual marijuana use warrants any therapeutic intervention. For those ineligible for TASC or who do not want to participate in drug testing, a jury trial is your option. The jury has a right to simply nullify the conviction. There have also been many cases that have used the nullification power to set otherwise guilty defendant’s free. These verdicts are more commonly known as “conscience verdicts.” Hanson v. United States, 156 U.S. 51, 102 (1895). The argument that has been made in support of jury nullification being explained to the jury before they deliberate follows this logic; a jury of your peers are meant to take the law and apply it to the facts, but the jury alone makes the decision about what facts and what law matter in your case, therefore, the jury, and only the jury, should have the right to make the determination, regardless of the facts and the law, about your innocence. Makes sense right? Well the founders of our country thought so too, that’s why jury nullification is written into our law. So the next time you are in the breakfast isle at your local market, make sure you take a moment to tip your hat to William Penn, not only for delicious cheese steaks, but also for highlighting the power of a jury to send the message to the state that some laws do not warrant convictions. If you are interested in viewing the full New York Times article “Jurors Can Say No” please follow the link here:
Marie J. Cacciatore is a second year law student at Phoenix School of Law and clerk for Gregg R. Woodnick PLLC. Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No By PAUL BUTLER Published: December 20, 2011 IF you are ever on a jury in a marijuana case, I recommend that you vote “not guilty” — even if you think the defendant actually smoked pot, or sold it to another consenting adult. As a juror, you have this power under the Bill of Rights; if you exercise it, you become part of a proud tradition of American jurors who helped make our laws fairer. The information I have just provided — about a constitutional doctrine called “jury nullification” — is absolutely true. But if federal prosecutors in New York get their way, telling the truth to potential jurors could result in a six-month prison sentence. Earlier this year, prosecutors charged Julian P. Heicklen, a retired chemistry professor, with jury tampering because he stood outside the federal courthouse in Manhattan providing information about jury nullification to passers-by. Given that I have been recommending nullification for nonviolent drug cases since 1995 — in such forums as The Yale Law Journal, “60 Minutes” and YouTube — I guess I, too, have committed a crime. The prosecutors who charged Mr. Heicklen said that “advocacy of jury nullification, directed as it is to jurors, would be both criminal and without constitutional protections no matter where it occurred.” The prosecutors in this case are wrong. The First Amendment exists to protect speech like this — honest information that the government prefers citizens not know. Laws against jury tampering are intended to deter people from threatening or intimidating jurors. To contort these laws to justify punishing Mr. Heicklen, whose court-appointed counsel describe him as “a shabby old man distributing his silly leaflets from the sidewalk outside a courthouse,” is not only unconstitutional but unpatriotic. Jury nullification is not new; its proponents have included John Hancock and John Adams. The doctrine is premised on the idea that ordinary citizens, not government officials, should have the final say as to whether a person should be punished. As Adams put it, it is each juror’s “duty” to vote based on his or her “own best understanding, judgment and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.” In 1895, the Supreme Court ruled that jurors had no right, during trials, to be told about nullification. The court did not say that jurors didn’t have the power, or that they couldn’t be told about it, but only that judges were not required to instruct them on it during a trial. Since then, it’s been up to scholars like me, and activists like Mr. Heicklen, to get the word out. Nullification has been credited with helping to end alcohol prohibition and laws that criminalized gay sex. Last year, Montana prosecutors were forced to offer a defendant in a marijuana case a favorable plea bargain after so many potential jurors said they would nullify that the judge didn’t think he could find enough jurors to hear the case. (Prosecutors now say they will remember the actions of those jurors when they consider whether to charge other people with marijuana crimes.) There have been unfortunate instances of nullification. Racist juries in the South, for example, refused to convict people who committed violent acts against civil-rights activists, and nullification has been used in cases involving the use of excessive force by the police. But nullification is like any other democratic power; some people may try to misuse it, but that does not mean it should be taken away from everyone else. How one feels about jury nullification ultimately depends on how much confidence one has in the jury system. Based on my experience, I trust jurors a lot. I first became interested in nullification when I prosecuted low-level drug crimes in Washington in 1990. Jurors here, who were predominantly African-American, nullified regularly because they were concerned about racially selective enforcement of the law. Across the country, crime has fallen, but incarceration rates remain at near record levels. Last year, the New York City police made 50,000 arrests just for marijuana possession. Because prosecutors have discretion over whether to charge a suspect, and for what offense, they have more power than judges over the outcome of a case. They tend to throw the book at defendants, to compel them to plead guilty in return for less harsh sentences. In some jurisdictions, like Washington, prosecutors have responded to jurors who are fed up with their draconian tactics by lobbying lawmakers to take away the right to a jury trial in drug cases. That is precisely the kind of power grab that the Constitution’s framers were so concerned about. In October, the Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia, asked at a Senate hearing about the role of juries in checking governmental power, seemed open to the notion that jurors “can ignore the law” if the law “is producing a terrible result.” He added: “I’m a big fan of the jury.” I’m a big fan, too. I would respectfully suggest that if the prosecutors in New York bring fair cases, they won’t have to worry about jury nullification. Dropping the case against Mr. Heicklen would let citizens know that they are as committed to justice, and to free speech, as they are to locking people up. Paul Butler, a former federal prosecutor, is a professor of law at George Washington University and the author of “Let’s Get Free: A Hip-Hop Theory of Justice.”
Jury Nullification—Jury Has Power to Nullify Law Van O'Steen At the end of most jury trials, the judge gives the jury instructions regarding the law applicable to the case. The jury is then excused to begin its deliberations and reach a verdict. Jury verdict research indicates that most juries give great weight to the judge's instructions about the law. They take seriously the charge to apply the facts presented during the trial to the law as described to them by the judge. Under our legal system, however, the law need not control juries. They may reach any verdict they like, notwithstanding what many would consider to be the obvious conclusion to be drawn from the evidence applied to the law. In legal circles, this concept sometimes is referred to as "jury nullification". The term is used to describe the ability of a jury to effectively nullify the law in connection with the case they are hearing. This little-known principle is well established in our legal system. It predates the American Revolution. If a jury believes a law is unjust, or that circumstances justify disregarding it, the jury generally has the power to reach a verdict that is apparently inconsistent with the traditional application of facts to law. Most legal scholars agree that this power is one of the strengths of our judicial system. It is a corrective feature that permits ordinary citizens to do justice when unusual circumstances arise. American juries have enormous power, and most of the time it is exercised responsibly. Juries may be reluctant to reach a first-degree murder conviction, or any conviction at all, where the accused disconnected a respirator from a terminally ill loved one resulting in death or more serious injury. The power of jury nullification permits a "not guilty" verdict in situations such as this.
Is it legal for juries to ignore the law and substitute their own judgment? Yes, in the sense that there can be no criminal penalty for doing so and no reversal of a jury’s decision to acquit. Once a verdict is delivered, the double jeopardy clause protects the accused from reprosecution even if the jury’s verdict was a result of nullification. And a juror who steadfastly maintains that he simply wasn’t convinced by the evidence cannot be accused of any wrongdoing, no matter how thin his story may be. So while ignoring the law is not what the jury is supposed to do, the practical fact is that jurors cannot be stopped from doing it. In that sense, it’s legal. Parenthetically, we should note that potential jurors are typically subject to questioning before being chosen for a jury, in a process called voir dire. A juror who can be shown to have lied during this process, perhaps by concealing his views about the laws at issue, can be subsequently charged with a crime, although it won’t affect the verdict rendered in the original case. The appellate judges did opine, however, that “… in certain narrow circumstances, a juror can be found in contempt for the failure to disclose during voir dire information asked for with sufficient specificity.…” “If it’s legal, aren't judges required to let a potential juror know about it?” A resounding no. Remember, the practice is legal only in the sense that the jury’s verdict is untouchable, and a juror who simply claims he is unconvinced by the evidence cannot be punished for refusing to convict.
The doctrine is premised on the idea that ordinary citizens, not government officials, should have the final say as to whether a person should be punished. As Adams put it, it is each juror’s “duty” to vote based on his or her “own best understanding, judgment and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.” In 1895, the Supreme Court ruled that jurors had no right, during trials, to be told about nullification. The court did not say that jurors didn’t have the power, or that they couldn’t be told about it, but only that judges were not required to instruct them on it during a trial. Since then, it’s been up to scholars like me, and activists like Mr. Heicklen, to get the word out. There have been unfortunate instances of nullification. Racist juries in the South, for example, refused to convict people who committed violent acts against civil-rights activists, and nullification has been used in cases involving the use of excessive force by the police. But nullification is like any other democratic power; some people may try to misuse it, but that does not mean it should be taken away from everyone else.
The Founding Fathers believed that juries in criminal trials had a role to play as the “conscience of the community” and relied on juries’ “nullifying” to hold the government to the principles of the Constitution. John Adams wrote, “It is not only the juror’s right, but his duty to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment and conscience, though in direct opposition to the instruction of the court.” Thomas Jefferson wrote, “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.”
peter wilson - marijuana tax stamps and dope dealers license
Now, as a “recovering prosecutor,” I want to share a secret power with my fellow Americans --a power that ordinary people have-- that could help end the destructive “War on Drugs.” The Fifth Amendment prohibits defendants from being tried for the same crime twice. This means that when a jury finds someone not guilty, there can never be a re-trial -- even if the judge disagrees with the jury’s verdict, or if there is compelling new evidence of guilt. The Supreme Court has ruled that this doctrine gives juries the power to nullify the law. If jurors believe the law is unjust, they don’t have to apply it. There is nothing that anyone can do to prevent jurors from nullifying -- under the Constitution, when it comes to acquittals, jurors have the last word. Nullification works only in one direction -- in favor of acquittals. If a jury finds someone guilty, and there is compelling evidence that the person is innocent, judges have the power to overturn the jury’s conviction (that doesn’t happen a lot in the real world). Giving jurors more power to acquit is based on the constitutional principle that it’s better to let guilty people go free than to allow the innocent to be punished.
Is it legal for juries to ignore the law and substitute their own judgment? Yes, in the sense that there can be no criminal penalty for doing so and no reversal of a jury’s decision to acquit. Once a verdict is delivered, the double jeopardy clause protects the accused from reprosecution even if the jury’s verdict was a result of nullification. And a juror who steadfastly maintains that he simply wasn’t convinced by the evidence cannot be accused of any wrongdoing, no matter how thin his story may be. So while ignoring the law is not what the jury is supposed to do, the practical fact is that jurors cannot be stopped from doing it. In that sense, it’s legal. Parenthetically, we should note that potential jurors are typically subject to questioning before being chosen for a jury, in a process called voir dire. A juror who can be shown to have lied during this process, perhaps by concealing his views about the laws at issue, can be subsequently charged with a crime, although it won’t affect the verdict rendered in the original case. The appellate judges did opine, however, that “… in certain narrow circumstances, a juror can be found in contempt for the failure to disclose during voir dire information asked for with sufficient specificity.…” “If it’s legal, aren't judges required to let a potential juror know about it?” A resounding no. Remember, the practice is legal only in the sense that the jury’s verdict is untouchable, and a juror who simply claims he is unconvinced by the evidence cannot be punished for refusing to convict.
The doctrine is premised on the idea that ordinary citizens, not government officials, should have the final say as to whether a person should be punished. As Adams put it, it is each juror’s “duty” to vote based on his or her “own best understanding, judgment and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.” In 1895, the Supreme Court ruled that jurors had no right, during trials, to be told about nullification. The court did not say that jurors didn’t have the power, or that they couldn’t be told about it, but only that judges were not required to instruct them on it during a trial. Since then, it’s been up to scholars like me, and activists like Mr. Heicklen, to get the word out. There have been unfortunate instances of nullification. Racist juries in the South, for example, refused to convict people who committed violent acts against civil-rights activists, and nullification has been used in cases involving the use of excessive force by the police. But nullification is like any other democratic power; some people may try to misuse it, but that does not mean it should be taken away from everyone else.
Source The Founding Fathers believed that juries in criminal trials had a role to play as the “conscience of the community” and relied on juries’ “nullifying” to hold the government to the principles of the Constitution. John Adams wrote, “It is not only the juror’s right, but his duty to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment and conscience, though in direct opposition to the instruction of the court.” Thomas Jefferson wrote, “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.”
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people18th Amendment Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
I believe Arizona's DUI/DWI laws are among the strictest in the nation and if even a microscopic trace of marijuana is detected in your body you are consider guilty of drunk driving according to ARS 28-1381 and ARS 13-3401 28-1381.A. It is unlawful for a person to drive or be in actual physical control of a vehicle in this state under any of the following circumstanceBut Prop 203 which is Arizona's medical marijuana law in ARS 36-2802.D, clearly says if you are a medical marijuana patient you can not be arrested for DUI because you have marijuana metabolites in you body: ARS 36-2802.D Operating, navigating or being in actual physical control of any motor vehicle, aircraft or motorboat while under the influence of marijuana, except that a registered qualifying patient shall not be considered to be under the influence of marijuana solely because of the presence of metabolites or components of marijuana that appear in insufficient concentration to cause impairment.
Fully Informed Jury Association - FIJA These are the main people that preach Jury Nullification.
William Penn - Bushel's Case William Penn may have thought he had settled the matter. Arrested in 1670 for preaching Quakerism, Penn was brought to trial. Despite Penn's admitting the charge, four of the 12 jurors voted to acquit. The judge sent the four to jail "without meat, drink, fire and tobacco" for failing to find Penn guilty. On appeal, however, the jurors' action was upheld and the right of juries to judge both the law and the facts -- to nullify the law if it chose -- became part of British constitutional law. It ultimately became part of American constitutional law as well, but you'd never know it listening to jury instructions today almost anywhere in the country. With only a few exceptions, juries are explicitly or implicitly told to worry only about the facts and let the judge decide the law. The right of jury nullification has become one of the legal system's best kept secrets.
William Penn - Bushel's Case From Magna Carta to Edward Bushell The power of the jury to judge the justice of the law and to hold laws invalid by a finding of "not guilty" for any law a juror felt was unjust or oppres-sive, dates back to the Magna Carta, in 1215. At the time of the Magna Carta King John could pass any laws any time he pleased. Judges and executive officers, appointed and removed at his whim, were no more than servants of the King. The oppression became so great that the nation rose against the ruler and the barons of England compelled their king to pledge that he would punish no freeman for a violation of any laws without the consent of his peers. King John violently protested when the Magna Carta was shown to him, "and with a solemn oath protested, that he would never grant such liberties as would make himself a slave." Afterwards, fearing seizure of his castle and the loss of his throne, he granted the Magna Carta to the people, placing the liberties of the people in their own safe-keeping. (Echard’s History of England, p. 106-107 [Spooner]) The Magna Carta was a gift reluctantly bestowed upon his subjects by the King. Its sole means of enforcement, the jury, often met with hostility from the Crown. By 1664 English juries were routinely fined for acquitting a defendant. Such was the case in the 1670 political trial of William Penn for preaching Quakerism to an unlawful assembly. Four of the twelve jurors voted to acquit and continued to acquit even after being imprisoned and starved for four days. The jurors were fined and imprisoned until they paid the fines. One juror, Edward Bushell, refused to pay the fine and brought his case before the Court of Common Pleas. Chief Justice Vaughan held that jurors could not be punished for their verdicts. Bushell’s Case (1670) was one of the most important developments in the common law history of the jury. Jurors exercised their power of nullification in 18th century England in trials of defendants charged with sedition and in mitigating death penalty cases. In the American Colonies jurors refused to enforce forfeitures under the English Navigation Acts. The Colonial jurors’ veto power prompted England to extend the jurisdiction of the non-jury admiralty courts in America beyond their ancient limits of sea-going vessels. Depriving "the defendant of the right to be tried by a jury which was almost certain not to convict him [became] . . . the most effective, and therefore most disliked" of all the methods used to enforce the acts of trade. (Holdsworth, A History of English Law (1938) XI, 110)
William Penn - Bushel's Case Bushel's Case arose from a previous case involving two Quakers charged with unlawful assembly, William Penn and William Mead. They had been arrested in August 1670 for violating the Conventicle Act, which forbade religious assemblies of more than five people outside the auspices of the Church of England. The jury found the two "guilty of speaking in Gracechurch Street" but refused to add "to an unlawful assembly". The infuriated judge charged the jury that they "shall not be dismissed until we have a verdict that the court will accept". The jury modified the verdict to "guilty of speaking to an assembly in Gracechurch Street", whereupon the judge had them locked up overnight without food, water or heat. Penn protested this and the judge ordered him bound and gagged (it is not known whether this order was carried out). Finally, after a two-day fast, the jury returned a not guilty verdict. The judge fined the jury for returning a verdict contrary to their own findings of fact. Penn protested that this violated the laws of the Magna Carta and was forcibly removed from the court. The judge found the jury in contempt of court and removed them to prison. Edward Bushel, a member of the jury, nonetheless refused to pay the fine.
By the late 17th century, the court's ability to punish juries was removed in Bushel's Case[20] involving a juror on the case against William Penn. Penn and William Mead had been arrested in 1670 for illegally preaching a Quaker sermon and disturbing the peace, but four jurors, led by Edward Bushell refused to find them guilty. Instead of dismissing the jury, the judge sent them back for further deliberations. Despite the judge demanding a guilty verdict, the jury this time unanimously found Penn guilty of preaching but acquitted him on the charge of disturbing the peace and acquitted Mead of all charges. The jury was then subsequently kept for three days without "meat, drink, fire and tobacco" to force them to bring in a guilty verdict and when they failed to do so the judge ended the trial. As punishment the judge ordered the jurors imprisoned until they paid a fine to the court. Four jurors refused to pay the fine and after several months, Edward Bushell sought a writ of habeas corpus. Chief Justice Vaughan, sitting on the Court of Common Pleas, discharged the writ, released them, called the power to punish a jury "absurd", and forbade judges from punishing jurors for returning a verdict the judge disagreed with.[21] This series of events is considered a significant milestone in the history of jury nullification.[22] The particular case is celebrated in a plaque displayed in the Central Criminal Court (The Old Bailey) in London. ... In the United States, jury nullification first appeared in the pre-Civil War era when juries sometimes refused to convict for violations of the Fugitive Slave Act. Later, during Prohibition, juries often nullified alcohol control laws, possibly as often as 60% of the time. This resistance may have contributed to the adoption of the Twenty-first amendment repealing Prohibition, the Eighteenth amendment. ... "Jury nullification" was practiced in the 1850s to protest the federal Fugitive Slave Act, which was part of the Compromise of 1850. The Act had been passed to mollify the slave owners from the South, who were otherwise threatening to secede from the Union. Across the North, local juries acquitted men accused of violating the law. Secretary of State Daniel Webster was a key supporter of the law as expressed in his famous "Seventh of March" speech. He wanted high-profile convictions. ...
When has jury nullification been practiced? The most famous nullification case is the 1735 trial of John Peter Zenger, charged with printing seditious libels of the Governor of the Colony of New York, William Cosby. Despite the fact that Zenger clearly printed the alleged libels (the only issue the court said the jury was free to decide, as the court deemed the truth or falsity of the statements to be irrelevant), the jury nonetheless returned a verdict of "Not Guilty." Jury nullification appeared at other times in our history when the government has tried to enforce morally repugnant or unpopular laws. In the early 1800s, nullification was practiced in cases brought under the Alien and Sedition Act. In the mid 1800s, northern juries practiced nullification in prosecutions brought against individuals accused of harboring slaves in violation of the Fugitive Slave Laws. And in the Prohibition Era of the 1930s, many juries practiced nullification in prosecutions brought against individuals accused of violating alcohol control laws. More recent examples of nullification might include acquittals of "mercy killers," including Dr. Jack Kevorkian, and minor drug offenders.
Do judges have to tell juries about their right to "jury nullification"???
In fact, the United States actually has a history of jury nullification. The practice, which appeared in the years leading up to the American Civil War, originated as a means of moral opposition to the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. It resurfaced later when, in the early 20th century, as many as 60 percent of Prohibition-era alcohol control cases ended in acquittal. Although judges and legal scholars take a variety of positions of the subject of jury nullification, the validity of the practice is usually said to follow logically from several aspects of our judicial system. The first of these is that members of a jury cannot be punished or reprimanded for any of the decisions that they deliver. The second is contained in the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment, which basically states that an individual who has already been acquitted of a crime cannot be tried again on the basis of that same crime.
Jury nullification is legal. But, you may not want to lie to a judge about stuff. They can punish you for that. And there are somethings that if you do while on a jury that they can put you in jail for. But they can not punish you for voting to acquit a person, nor trying to convince other jurors to acquit the person [as long as you don't do those certain illegal things!]
In 1215, when the Barons of England compelled King John to sign the Magna Carta, trial by jury was established. The King now had to seek permission through 12 citizens unanimous in their verdict before he could take anyone's freedom away. That’s why we have jury trials: To protect people from government oppression. In 1670, Quakers William Penn and William Mead were prosecuted for preaching to an assembly. The government did not approve of the Quaker religion and made laws against public assembly. At the end of the trial, the judge instructed the jury to return a guilty verdict. Four jurors, led by Edward Bushell, refused to return the guilty verdict. The judge then ordered the jury locked up until they returned with an acceptable verdict, the one he had asked them to return. For two days the jury refused to return a guilty verdict and the judge ended the trial. As punishment, the judge ordered the jurors imprisoned until they paid a fine. Bushell refused and spent months in jail. He was eventually released after his habeas corpus petition prompted the Court of Common Pleas chief judge to rule that a jury can nullify the law and forbade judges from punishing jurors for their verdicts. Witch trials stopped The Salem witch trials began in 1692. After a splendid year-long government conviction rate and the execution of 33 witches, in May, 1693, juries decided the court of Oyer and Terminer had gone too far. They nullified the witchcraft law with 52 consecutive hung juries and/or acquittals. Frustrated, prosecutors ceased bringing cases to trial. Juries made it impossible to hang or otherwise put to death known witches in Salem. |