1 Jury nullification is the name given to the practice of juries to render a not-guilty verdict against an accused defendant despite evidence that, according to the evidence presented in the case against the defendant as a matter of law and/or fact, the defendant is manifestly guilty. In the background of a jury's action in that regard would be the opinion of the jury that the law it is being called upon to enforce is repugnant. Accordingly, the phenomenon has also been described as the process by which a jury can negate laws it views unreasonable or unjust" (Jackson, 1999, p. 1).
Jackson locates the concept as far back as the 13th century, with the Magna Carta, in England. However, in the US it is often linked initially to the not-guilty verdict of John Peter Zenger, a printer who published anonymous criticisms of a rapacious royal official in New York in 1735 and who was put in jail for sedition and libel when he refused to name the article authors. The judge told the jury only to decide whether Zenger was guilty of publishing the articles, not whether they were true. However, Zenger's lawyer argued that the truth issue was paramount and urged the jury to vote not guilty in order to protect truth. The jury agreed, thus nullifying the obvious fact that Zenger had indeed published the articles (Gard, 1999).
Subsequently, jury nullification was a concept used to argue for justice against tyranny. Jury nullification appeared in the years before the Civil War, when northern juries acquitted violators of the fugitive slave laws and southern juries acquitted persons accused of mistreating slaves (Dilworth, 1996). Furthermore, it was found by the Supreme Court in 1895 in Sparf and Hansen v. United States that juries do not have to follow the law but are entitled to come to any verdict they choose. That is why, when nullification was used during Prohibition (1919-1932) by juries refusing to convict people of violating antidrinking laws,...