Jury nullification occurs when a jury decides to acquit a defendant it believes to be guilty of the crime he has been charged with committing. In returning a not-guilty verdict, the jury willfully ignores the facts of the case as well as the judgeÆs instructions regarding the proper procedure and the law and in effect votes its conscience. Jury nullification can occur for a variety of reasons, including because the jurors found the defendant to be an attractive or elpathetic figure, because they were members of the same race or harbored hatred towards the victimÆs race, or sometimes just because the jury was tired of deliberating and being sequestered for an extended period of time. By far the most common reason today, however, is the fact that some Black juries in the inner city are unwilling to convict a Black defendant of a crime. This paper will analyze the phenomenon of jury nullification and its use today by the Black community to empower themselves in the face of a criminal justice system they often believe to be inherently racist and unjust. First, we will examine the constitutional protections afforded jury nullification. Then, we will explore how the nationÆs appellate courts have attempted to handle jury nullification in light of these protections. Lastly, we will examine the reasons behind the seemingly widespread support for jury nullification within the inner city black community.
History and Constitutional Protections
Jury nullification has a long and storied history in the United States. A juryÆs prerogative to nullify the case presented before them has been part of the American legal tradition since before the Revolutionary War. The first well known cases occurred when pro-liberty American patriots were charged of committing politically motivated crimes by the British crown. Many of these patriots were acquitted by American juries despite overwhelming evidence that they were guilty of the crimes ...