Changes

'''Jury nullification''' is the legal power of a jury to declare a defendant "not guilty" even though the law would require a guilty verdict.  In so doing, the jury "nullifies" the effect of the law in a particular case.

'''Jury nullification''' is the legal power of a jury to declare a defendant "not guilty" even though the law would require a guilty verdict.  In so doing, the jury "nullifies" the effect of the law in a particular case.

This doctrine was established in the trial of [[William Penn]] in [[England]].  Penn had joined the [[Quakers]] in [[London]], a religion disliked by the King. In 1670, Penn held a worship service and was arrested allegedly for disturbing the King's peace At trial, the jurors heard testimony and the judge, as is still the custom, delivered jury instructions prior to its deliberations. The jury instructions included an order to find the Penn guilty.

This doctrine was established in the trial of [[William Penn]] in [[England]].  Penn had joined the [[Quakers]] in [[London]], a religion disliked by the King. In 1670, Penn held a worship service and was arrested allegedly for disturbing the King's peace At trial, the jurors heard testimony and the judge, as is still the custom, delivered [[jury instructions]] prior to its deliberations. The jury instructions included an order to find the Penn guilty.

But the jury refused to find Penn guilty. The judge angrily sent them back to continue deliberations. The jury returned again with its same verdict. The judge demanded "a verdict that the court will accept, and you shall be locked up without meat, drink, fire, and tobacco ....  We will have a verdict by the help of God or you will starve for it." The jury went out three more times, and returned with the same verdict each time. Then it refused to deliberate any more and the judge fined and imprisoned them. Penn was also fined and imprisoned on a scurrilous new charge invented at trial (for donning a hat in the courtroom).

But the jury refused to find Penn guilty. The judge angrily sent them back to continue deliberations. The jury returned again with its same verdict. The judge demanded "a verdict that the court will accept, and you shall be locked up without meat, drink, fire, and tobacco ....  We will have a verdict by the help of God or you will starve for it." The jury went out three more times, and returned with the same verdict each time. Then it refused to deliberate any more and the judge fined and imprisoned them. Penn was also fined and imprisoned on a scurrilous new charge invented at trial (for donning a hat in the courtroom).