Changes

The general power of juries to decide on verdicts was stated in the English [[Magna Carta]] of 1215, which put into words existing practices:

The general power of juries to decide on verdicts was stated in the English [[Magna Carta]] of 1215, which put into words existing practices:

<blockquote>    No free man shall be captured, and or imprisoned, or disseised of his freehold, and or of his liberties, or of his free customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or in any way destroyed, nor will we proceed against him by force or proceed against him by arms, but by the lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land

<blockquote>    No free man shall be captured, and or imprisoned, or disseised of his freehold, and or of his liberties, or of his free customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or in any way destroyed, nor will we proceed against him by force or proceed against him by arms, but by the lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land<br><br>

     For a trivial offence, a free man shall be fined only in proportion to the degree of his offence, and for a serious offence correspondingly, but not so heavily as to deprive him of his livelihood. In the same way, a merchant shall be spared his merchandise, and a husbandman the implements of his husbandry, if they fall upon the mercy of a royal court. None of these fines shall be imposed except by the assessment on oath of reputable men of the neighbourhood.</blockquote>

     For a trivial offence, a free man shall be fined only in proportion to the degree of his offence, and for a serious offence correspondingly, but not so heavily as to deprive him of his livelihood. In the same way, a merchant shall be spared his merchandise, and a husbandman the implements of his husbandry, if they fall upon the mercy of a royal court. None of these fines shall be imposed except by the assessment on oath of reputable men of the neighbourhood.</blockquote>

On appeal, the jurors won their independence and were released from jail, though that did not help Penn.

On appeal, the jurors won their independence and were released from jail, though that did not help Penn.

This case established the principle of "jury nullification," whereby a jury’s decision is final and dispositive even if it rejects the law. Jury nullification has occurred in America, as in acquitting [[John Peter Zenger]] and acquitting defendants accused of violating the Alien and Sedition Act and the Fugitive Slave Act.

This case established the principle that a juror could not be prosecuted for his vote on the jury, whereby a jury’s decision is final and dispositive even if it rejects the law. Jury nullification has occurred in America, as in acquitting [[John Peter Zenger]] and acquitting defendants accused of violating the Alien and Sedition Act and the Fugitive Slave Act.

Today, court rules and the ethics rules governing attorney conduct prohibit lawyers and judges from suggesting to juries that they have the right to engage in jury nullification.

Today, court rules and the ethics rules governing attorney conduct prohibit lawyers and judges from suggesting to juries that is jury nullification is an available option.  Each juror takes an oath to apply the law as instructed by the judge, and jurors are asked questions during jury selection to determine whether they are prepared to carry out that duty.  For example, in death penalty cases, prospective jurors are asked if their views on the death penalty would affect their ability to perform their duty.  So, for jury nullification to occur in the United States, a juror would not only break his oath but also be prepared to lie about his views and intent during jury selection.  An additional safeguard is that if the jury was not unanimous, a "hung jury" would result in a mistrial and (at the prosecutor's discretion, if s/he believed it would result in a guilty verdict) a subsequent trial by a different jury.

[[Category:Law]]

[[Category:Law]]