The Power In Jury Nullification

The concept of trial by jury has evolved through common law systems throughout the years and one of the features of this system, which is in place to help safeguard against tyranny, is the authority of jurors to nullify. This means that jurors are equipped with the authority to not only judge the facts that are presented in a particular case, but they are also allowed to judge the law itself.

Many jurors don't know that they have this power available to them however, and it's true that a great number think that all they are called to do is to question the crime and facts surrounding it.

Jury nullification is a method left available to the people to keep the power in their hands, giving them a tool that can help them overturn what they believe are unjust laws. Jury nullification had a part in ending alcohol prohibition and it's this sort of power that can keep people out of prison even if they have been arrested for a victimless crime; which we know there are many of.

When it comes to jury nullification and a particular case, no matter what evidence is available in that case, the jury can decide to say 'not guilty' via jury nullification because they either believe the law is being applied unfairly or they don't see the law as justified or reasonable. People get to tell the government what they can and can't do by deciding whether or not to nullify.

Even if the prosecution is able to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that someone committed a 'crime', the jury still has authority to say 'not guilty' via the way of jury nullification. Juries are quite often the very last line of defense against abuses of power from authorities and this nullification power enables them to try and keep those authorities in check by making sure they apply laws correctly and that those laws are just in the first place.

The jurors cannot count on the judge or the counsel etc to inform them of this authority though, so chances are they most likely aren't going to be aware of it and that is why we don't frequently see it exercised. Most people don't know that this power is available to them.

Thanks to the internet though, people are now becoming increasingly aware of jury nullification, and we are seeing more nullification exercised nowadays, especially with cannabis-related charges. The premise of nullification rests on the notion that it is the people, not the government, who should have the ultimately say on who gets punished.




Thanks for disseminating this vital truth... 😄😇😄


Looking at a little bit difficult,Thank you for your share.

I personally do not beleive in the people having to power as they have in US legal system; however I do see the advantages in some cases like you mentioned in your post. I'm from the Netherlands and we do not have jury system. In my country it is the laywer who takes more or less the role of the jury. Many cases in which the prosection find someone guilty, the person under trial, is judged not guilty based on all sort of things, including wrong application of the law by the prosecution brought forward by the laywer. I personally like a system with high quality lawyers, as we have in the Netherlands, over a system with a jury who may not know the law, who may not be 100% objective and may be influenced by emotions or whatever non objective view (take for instance OJ Simpson).

Lawyers and judges can never be 100% objective. They all have personal preferences, throughout law-school and their careers. Whether they be conservative or progressive etc, Lawyers and judges are also susceptible to corruption and ignorance, just as jurors are. They are not infallible.

You are correct, however in general, I do beleive in systems of specialist knowing their subjects with independent controllers. In the Netherlands and other countries in Europe we use the referendum system more and more, which turns out to be distructive in my opinion; also a system where the common people have the vote but a large part of them voting without even reading the documents underlying the referendum, ie without being informed. This is however of topic, but shows you my opinion on common people involvement in important topics. Back to law; laywers and judges who are not doing their job right, shall be taking out of their position. In the netherlands we have a legal system allowing all, prosecution as well as lawyer and his/her client to go to the next level of law; at least 2 or 3 levels of courts we have in our system, for any kind of crime. In this way any bad performing judge or laywer can be overruled in the next level.

The jury is supposed to be the community tempering the authority of government while offering their own knowledge of the facts and individuals involved in a dispute. It has been corrupted by the State into a rubber stamp for the government case.

We've had two referendums,
One about a European constitution( or how do you call it) and the people where against that, two years later minister president signed the treaty of Lisbon. (the treason of Lisbon) By which they ignored the wishes of the people two years earlier.
The second was the Ukraine referendum and again the politicians worked around the "no"
Now the wanna get rid of referendums altogether.
And by the way all referendums are not binding only advise.

quote// In this way any bad performing judge or laywer can be overruled in the next level.//
You mean his judgement can be overruled? Not that the judge who did the "bad judgement"is going to be laid off? Toch?

Just got called... I bet they don't know I'm a freeman on the land type. It is always in our hands, but the longer we wait they less of this authority we will have.

Well jury nullification in America can help, but I think when it happens more and more they will simply say "no more jury nullification's" They find some case, by which they say; "see nullification let's criminals walk" and make it an example, and the majority of the people, will agree with doing away with it, If you use the right propaganda as a politician, the slaves will beg for it.

The powers that be already try to say no to jury nullification by doing the following:

  • Failing to tell people that they have the right to vote not guilty no matter what the facts are
  • Using jury selection questions(er, tampering) to exclude anyone they think might nullify

It doesn't really matter whether or not it is made illegal though. As long as we have trial by jury (usually avoided by using trumped up charges and offering plea deals these days) every thinking man and woman who sits on a jury has within their power the ability to say not guilty and stick to it.

This is a right not because someone says so. It is a right because as long as a unanimous vote is required by a jury it only takes one man or woman to say not guilty and refuse to say otherwise.

No one can make you say guilty.

Great stuff. I appreciate this being presented repeatedly, because most of us are so ignorant of it.

Do you know if it can be appealed if nullified? Or does nullification also block any chance of the prosecution to appeal?

This is valuable information thanks for the information

Good article! I was called for jury duty and it was a fascinating experience. Out of 9 potential trials, I got called for 8. One was a murder trial where a guy beat a serial child molester to death in county jail. He got acquitted.