Thursday, December 22, 2011

Jury Nulification - in the New York Times

Paul Butler has a nice column in the New York Times: Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No.  He starts with: 

IF you are ever on a jury in a marijuana case, I recommend that you vote “not guilty” — even if you think the defendant actually smoked pot, or sold it to another consenting adult. As a juror, you have this power under the Bill of Rights; if you exercise it, you become part of a proud tradition of American jurors who helped make our laws fairer.

The information I have just provided — about a constitutional doctrine called “jury nullification” — is absolutely true. But if federal prosecutors in New York get their way, telling the truth to potential jurors could result in a six-month prison sentence.

Earlier this year, prosecutors charged Julian P. Heicklen, a retired chemistry professor, with jury tampering because he stood outside the federal courthouse in Manhattan providing information about jury nullification to passers-by. Given that I have been recommending nullification for nonviolent drug cases since 1995 — in such forums as The Yale Law Journal, “60 Minutes” and YouTube — I guess I, too, have committed a crime.

The prosecutors who charged Mr. Heicklen said that “advocacy of jury nullification, directed as it is to jurors, would be both criminal and without constitutional protections no matter where it occurred.” The prosecutors in this case are wrong. The First Amendment exists to protect speech like this — honest information that the government prefers citizens not know.

As members of a jury we have the responsibility to listen to the evidence and make a decision on if the defendent is guilty of the crime.  But we also have a responsibility to decide if the law is a good law.  This jury can nullify the law.  Paul Butler explains how over time judges have tried to discourage citizens from realizing this.

Hat tip: The Libertarian Homeschooler

No comments: