Don ’t Let Judges Lie to Juries about Conscientious Acquittal

James CravenJuror #112 had serious reservations about the case in front of him. The defendants were each charged with no less than 42 offenses. “Do we have the right to use jury nullification of a charge? ” the juror asked.The trial court ’s answer was evasive, but the juror was insistent. “Can you answer the jury nullification with a yes or no response? ” came the second note. After the third such inquiry, the circuit judge made the following declaration:“Ladies and gentlemen of the jury you may not use, implement, or resort to jury nullification. It is improper, it’s contrary to the law [and] would be a violation of your oath …”That declaration prompted a reversal by the Maryland Special Court of Appeals, the state ’s intermediate appellate court. But in anopinion filed on Jan. 29, Maryland ’s highest court—the Maryland Court of Appeals—upheld the circuit judge’s bald‐​faced assertion that jury nullification was “contrary to the law.”Do jurors have the power to nullify charges – or, in the words of Chief Justice Marshall, “find a verdict of guilty or not guilty as their own consciences may direct? ” The plain answer is yes. A jury ’s verdict of “not guilty” is final. It may not be set aside even if it flatly contradicts the evidence, and jurors may not be punished for acquittal. The U.S. Supreme Court most recently acknowledged this inGreggs v. Georgia 428 U.S. 153 (1976), which noted that a ...
Source: Cato-at-liberty - Category: American Health Authors: Source Type: blogs