I’ve been reading a lot about jury nullification, and I get that jurors have the power to acquit someone even if the law technically says they’re guilty. But what I don’t get is—why is this something that exists, yet courts don’t allow it to be talked about during a trial?

If it’s a legitimate part of the legal system, why is it treated like a secret? Would a juror get in trouble for mentioning it during deliberations? And what would happen if someone brought it up during jury selection?

I’m just curious how this all works in practice. If jurors can ultimately do whatever they want, what stops them from using nullification all the time?

  • Rivalarrival@lemmy.todayEnglish
    10·
    19 hours ago

    You’re acting like you found some defensible loophole but your cageyness means you know it won’t work if the facts were laid out before jury selection.

    I addressed that fact in the very beginning. The judge is bound by the doctrine of separation of powers. The judge must assume that legislated law is valid unless it is demonstrated to conflict with superior law, such as the constitution. The judge cannot exercise any powers reserved to the legislature. Empaneling a juror they know to be willing to exercise a legislative power would violate the separation of powers doctrine. The judge can’t do that.

    The judge also cannot prohibit a juror from deciding a case on the basis that the legislature failed to adequately consider the accused’s situation. Doing so is unconstitutional: it makes the juror an agent of the government, rather than a peer of the accused.

    The jury is not the only entity empowered to ignore the legislature. “Pardons” are an important executive check on an out-of-touch legislature. The unlimited power to acquit is the same thing.

    This “loophole” as you call it is perfectly defensible. As a juror, I will be compelled to make statements under penalty of perjury. How would you convict me for answering “No” to the question at hand?