Opus 2013-247: Headlines: Jury Nullification

Most of you have heard or read about the recent interview with Juror B29.  Her response makes me think a little more about the concept of Jury Nullification. 

Jury Nullification is the belief that the jury has the right to ignore the instructions of the judge about what the law says and decide the case on their own understanding of the case.  I remember the one time I made it on a jury.  It was a civil case so we were simply dealing with who caused the accident and how much it was worth.  The judge told us that when we had heard all the evidence he would inform of what the law said and what our options were. 

This puzzled me.  I asked him what he needed a jury for if he was going to tell us how we had to decide the case.  It really did not make any sense to me at the time.  Now I see the point.

In the past I have been on the side of Jury Nullification.  That is because I don’t have a lot of respect for what I see happening in court rooms.  Judges and lawyers seem to be playing games instead of trying to achieve truth and fairness.  The last refuge of citizens is the jury. 

This juror showed me the other side.  She should not have been on the jury to start with.  She had already decided that Zimmerman was guilty of murder.  Her mind was made up before she took the seat.  In spite of that she listened to the judge, understood the law and what was required and made the right decision.  I salute her for that. 

In this case the law was there to keep people from making a judgement on their feelings and emotions.  It was there to set up a standard that could be applied to all people regardless of their class or color.  That is the point of the rule of law.

I am not convinced that Jury Nullification does not have it place but this points out to me that I can be just as wrong as anyone.  I can run with my emotions as well as anyone else.  Caution is called for.

This requires more thought.

homo unius libri