Hey everybody, this is my first question but I love lurking on this sub! Anyway, I'm not 100% positive that this belongs here or anyone will be able to answer, but here goes anyway, and I'm sorry in advance if this is not considered within the scope of this sub. I was reading through the wikipedia page on jury nullification and I came across this statement:
In the 1895 in the case of Sparf v. United States written by Justice John Marshall Harlan, the United States Supreme Court held 5 to 4 that a trial judge has no responsibility to inform the jury of the right to nullify laws. This decision, often cited, has led to a common practice by United States judges to penalize anyone who attempts to present a nullification argument to jurors and to declare a mistrial if such argument has been presented to them. In some states, jurors are likely to be struck from the panel during voir dire if they will not agree to accept as correct the rulings and instructions of the law as provided by the judge.
I am wondering specifically if anyone knows why the Supreme Court's decision in the Sparf case has led to judges punishing defendants/lawyers who try to inform juries of their right to nullify? Does anyone have any specific insight into why this is the way things are done or why the case was interpreted in this way? Also, the following paragraph states:
In 1988, the Sixth Circuit upheld a jury instruction: "There is no such thing as valid jury nullification." In 1997, the Second Circuit ruled that jurors can be removed if there is evidence that they intend to nullify the law. The Supreme Court has not recently confronted the issue of jury nullification. Further, as officers of the court, attorneys have sworn an oath to uphold the law, and are ethically prohibited from directly advocating for jury nullification.
What is the reasoning behind this? Why would officers of the court be considered ethically prohibited from informing jurors of their legal right to nullify a trial or law that they consider wrong/unfair/etc?
I'm looking forward to your responses, thanks in advance.
Note: I also posted this in /r/asklaw, but this seems to be a slightly more active sub. Any legal historians out there by any chance?
Why would officers of the court be considered ethically prohibited from informing jurors of their legal right to nullify a trial or law that they consider wrong/unfair/etc?
Jurors have the power to nullify, but not the right to do so, because it means that the jury is willfully ignoring its oath to apply the law. The power of nullification exists because of two reasons:
So, what this means is that the jury has the power to ignore the law, and get away with it, but it's a bug of the American legal system, not a feature.
FYI, /r/law has had innumerable threads on this.
I am wondering specifically if anyone knows why the Supreme Court's decision in the Sparf case has led to judges punishing defendants/lawyers who try to inform juries of their right to nullify? Does anyone have any specific insight into why this is the way things are done or why the case was interpreted in this way?
First of all, some background. Jury nullification, as briefly noted in the Wikipedia article, was used to acquit members of the KKK and similar ilk who clearly violated laws. As such, the historical background already provides us with an explanation of why jury nullification was so frowned upon, especially in the late 1800s. Now, to get a little more detail in this:
In the 1895 in the case of Sparf v. United States written by Justice John Marshall Harlan, the United States Supreme Court held 5 to 4 that a trial judge has no responsibility to inform the jury of the right to nullify laws.
This statement is...ambiguous at best. The judge has no responsibility to inform the jury of the right to nullify laws, and the opinion in Sparf v. U.S. explains this after numerous examples of how the jury cannot interfere with the law, only understand and pass judgment on the evidence and facts of the case. As the opinion says on page 101 (read pre-page 100 for examples):
Any other rule than that indicated in the above observations would bring confusion and uncertainty in the administration of the criminal law. Indeed, if a jury may rightfully disregard the direction of the court in matter of law, and determine for themselves what the law is in the particular case before them, it is difficult to perceive any legal ground upon which a verdict of conviction can be set aside by the court as being against law.
The point, then, is that the judge is the one who clarifies the law. The defendants and lawyers, in informing the jury, place the question of law in the hands of the jury, not the judge. The judge must provide the instructions, not the jury, and if a jury hears that they can "nullify law" simply because the lawyer has informed them of said right, the jurors are getting involved in the realm of law they shouldn't have any involvement in.
That's why the next paragraph explains that the circuit courts don't believe there is any room for jury nullification to be a right. The Wikipedia article says that it's wrong to "inform jurors of their right to nullify", but it doesn't mention that the right itself was questioned heavily in Sparf, and denied. Essentially there is no "legal right to nullify" according to Sparf, because that would encroach on the judge's right to explain the law, so unless he explains that they have said right, it would not be allowed. That would be frowned on heavily, again, because of the situations that lead up to that point, which include economic considerations (necessitating predictability of the law in cases, which jury nullification works against) and because of the spotted history of its use (both for and against racist principles, dating back to the fugitive slave act if memory serves).
As an experienced attorney, I don't know if I qualify as a law "historian," or if my knowledge based on experience will get deleted as inappropriate. However, I am familiar with how the legal profession generally views jury nullification, both from law school, legal discussions and actual trial experience. Lawyers don't write much bio or history because of the attorney-client privilege, which belongs to the clients.
No one wants to promote a practice that can come back to bite them. If you believe the law is in your client's favor, then certainly you want the jury to feel obliged to follow it. Hence, in some other case where the law is against your client, even though your client might benefit from nullification, it's like turning loose a fractally spawning mutant. Once it gets going, it could nullify everything it touches.
For the most part, it comes up in criminal cases where disfavored laws like marijuana bans are enforced. Or when someone commits violence in revenge, like beats up or kills the person who molested their child. There are cases where everyone knows the jury didn't find innocence - they just nullified. But the people who actually get the benefits from this are almost universally wealthy or at least upper middle class, because no one else can afford to make bail, or hire their own lawyer, and the public defender system is heavily pressured to just guilty-plead everyone on through like chickens on a slaughter line.
Because jury nullification is not a legal right. It's something that happens outside the law. Sort of like judicial discretion.