Jurry Nullification

Jury Nullification

CJA/344

March 9, 2015

The United States’ criminal justice system holds one truth regarding suspects in crimes: innocent until proven guilty. The burden is placed on the state to prove the suspects guilt in the crime. The prosecutor must show the jury that the suspect is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. However if the prosecutor does so, the jury can still decide a verdict of innocence. This is known as jury nullification and often it occurs do to racial bias or prejudice. There are proponents and opponents to jury nullification because this loop hole in the judicial system may have long reaching effects on crime and the citizens effected by it.

A jury is carefully selected to use the facts and evidence presented during a trial to determine if the defendant has broken the law. They are instructed by the judge to only consider the facts in conjunction with the law. The jury is often unaware of the right to nullify as it is almost never presented to them as an alternative option to guilty or innocent. When a juror finds that the evidence clearly points toward a guilty verdict and yet believes that the law is unjustly placed upon the defendant, the juror as well as others may excise their nullification control.

Race plays a role in the judicial process. Defendants that are African American are more likely to be charged and prosecuted for the same minor crimes as whites and their sentences are generally longer by six months or more. Jury nullification has long been practice by whites. Crimes committed by whites against African American citizens were nullified during trial or outright found innocent. It is not unreasonable in that regard that African American leaders like former U.S. Attorney Paul Butler would call for the African American community to excise their right to jury nullification in cases where the defendant is African American (McNamara & Burns, 2009).

Proponents will argue that jury nullification exists to help bring...