Editing Jury nullification (section)

{{short description|Type of jury verdict in criminal trials}}
{{for|the book by Clay Conrad|Jury Nullification (book)}}
{{EngvarB|date=January 2019}}
{{use mdy dates|date=January 2019}}
{{Judicial interpretation}}
[[File:Trial of the Seven Bishops.jpg|thumb|right|upright=1.0|''The Trial of the Seven Bishops'' by [[John Rogers Herbert]]]]
'''Jury nullification''', also known in the [[United Kingdom]] as '''jury equity''',<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.enotes.com/homework-help/what-jury-equity-304290|title=What is jury equity?|website=eNotes|language=en|access-date=2020-03-23}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://volteface.me/feature/jury-nullification/|title=The Cheshire Cab Driver: Reasons of Conscience|website=Volteface|date=October 18, 2016 |language=en-US|access-date=2020-03-23}}</ref> or a '''perverse verdict''',<ref>{{cite book|author=Bethel G. A. Erastus-Obilo|title=The Place of the Explained Verdict in the English Criminal Justice System: Decision-making and Criminal Trials|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=71zBJKDs9SQC&pg=PA197|date= 2008|publisher=Universal-Publishers|isbn=978-1-59942-689-1|chapter=13: The 'Perverse' Verdict|pages=197–}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.thejusticegap.com/not-only-a-right-but-a-duty-a-history-of-perverse-verdicts | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190909030705/https://www.thejusticegap.com/not-only-a-right-but-a-duty-a-history-of-perverse-verdicts |title='Not only a right, but a duty': A history of perverse verdicts|website=The Justice Gap | date=1 May 2018 | author=David Hewitt | archive-date=9 September 2019 | access-date= 8 September 2019}}</ref> is when the [[jury]] in a [[trial|criminal trial]] gives a verdict of [[Acquittal|not guilty]] even though they think a [[defendant]] has broken the law. The jury's reasons may include the belief that the law itself is unjust,<ref name= PennsTrial1 /><ref name= PennsTrial2 /> that the [[prosecutor]] has misapplied the law in the defendant's case,<ref name= Ponting1985/> that the punishment for breaking the law is too harsh, or general frustrations with the criminal justice system. It has been commonly used to oppose what jurors perceive as [[Rule according to higher law|unjust laws]], such as those that once penalized runaway slaves under the [[Fugitive slave laws in the United States|Fugitive Slave Act]], prohibited alcohol during [[Prohibition in the United States|Prohibition]], or criminalized [[Vietnam War draft|draft evasion]] during the [[Vietnam War]].<ref name="GaspeeAffair" /><ref name="UMKC" /><ref>{{Cite book |last=Jeffrey B. Abramson |url=https://archive.org/details/wejuryjurysystem00abra/page/n11/mode/2up |title=We, the jury |date=1994 |publisher=BasicBooks |others=Internet Archive |isbn=978-0-465-03698-1}}</ref> Some juries have also refused to convict due to their own [[prejudice]]s in favor of the defendant.<ref name= Kennedy1997/> Such verdicts are possible because a jury has an absolute right to return any verdict it chooses.<ref>{{cite journal |journal=Litigation|volume=22|number=4|pages=6–60|date=1996|last=Duane|first= James|authorlink=James Joseph Duane |url=https://constitution.org/1-Constitution/2ll/2ndschol/131jur.pdf |title=Jury Nullification: The Top Secret Constitutional Right}}</ref> 

Nullification is not an official part of [[criminal procedure]], but is the logical consequence of two rules governing the systems in which it exists:
# Jurors cannot be punished for passing an incorrect verdict.<ref>{{citation|title=Justice Often Served By Jury Nullification|url=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163877,00.html|date=August 1, 2005|first=Radley |last=Balko|publisher=Fox News}}</ref>
# In many jurisdictions, a defendant who is acquitted [[double jeopardy|cannot be tried a second time]] for the same offense.<!--double jeopardy is no longer banned in England--><ref>{{citation|first=Clay S. |last=Conrad |title=Jury Nullification as a Defense Strategy |publisher=2 TEX. F. ON C.L. & C.R. 1, 1-2 |year=1995}}</ref>

A jury verdict that is contrary to the [[letter and spirit of the law|letter of the law]] pertains only to the particular case before it; however, if a pattern of acquittals develops in response to repeated attempts to prosecute a particular offence, this can have the ''[[de facto]]'' effect of invalidating the law. Such a pattern may indicate public opposition to an unwanted legislative enactment. It may also happen that a jury convicts a defendant even if no law was broken, although such a conviction may be overturned on appeal. Nullification can also occur in [[civil trial]]s;<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Conaway |first1=Teresa L. |last2=Mutz |first2=Carol L. |last3=Ross |first3=Joann M. |date=2004 |title=Jury Nullification: A Selective, Annotated Bibliography |url=https://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1256&context=vulr |url-status=live |journal=Valparaiso University Law Review |volume=39 |pages=410, 428–429 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210514005732/https://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1256&context=vulr |archive-date=2021-05-14 |via=ValpoScholar}}</ref> unlike in criminal trials, if the jury renders a not liable verdict that is clearly at odds with the evidence, the judge can issue a [[Judgment notwithstanding verdict | judgment notwithstanding the verdict]] or order a new trial.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Rubenstein |first=Arie M. |date=2006 |title=Verdicts of Conscience: Nullification and the Modern Jury Trial |url=https://ia601404.us.archive.org/28/items/verdicts-of-conscience-nullification-and-the-modern-jury-trial/Verdicts%20of%20Conscience%20-%20Nullification%20and%20the%20Modern%20Jury%20Trial.pdf |journal=Columbia Law Review |volume=106 |pages=960 }}</ref>