Legal Definitions - jury nullification

Jury nullification occurs when a jury in a criminal trial delivers a "not guilty" verdict, even though the jurors believe the defendant clearly broke the law based on the evidence presented. This happens because the jury, for various reasons, chooses to disregard the strict application of the law. They might do this because they believe the law itself is unjust, or that applying it in the specific circumstances of the case would lead to an unfair, immoral, or unjust outcome. It can also be a way for a jury to send a message about a broader social or political issue they feel is more important than the specific legal violation. While it is a powerful act, jury nullification is not a legally recognized right of the jury, and judges typically do not inform jurors about this possibility.

• A defendant is on trial for possessing a small amount of cannabis in a state where it is still illegal, but public opinion and legislative efforts are strongly moving towards legalization.

  Despite clear evidence that the defendant possessed the substance, and the judge's instructions on the law, the jury returns a "not guilty" verdict.

  This illustrates jury nullification because the jurors might believe that while the defendant technically broke the law, the law itself is outdated and unjust, or that a conviction would be contrary to evolving societal values. Their verdict effectively sends a message that they disagree with the current legal prohibition.

• A person is charged with trespassing and minor property damage after breaking into an abandoned, dilapidated building to provide shelter for homeless individuals during a severe winter storm.

  The evidence undeniably shows the defendant entered the property without permission and caused some damage. However, the jury acquits the defendant.

  In this situation, the jury might acknowledge the defendant's actions were technically illegal but feel that the moral imperative to save lives from the cold outweighs the property owner's rights. They nullify the law because they believe applying it would be unjust given the defendant's humanitarian motives.

• A parent is prosecuted for stealing essential medication from a pharmacy for their critically ill child, who would otherwise die without it, after being denied coverage by insurance and lacking the funds to pay.

  The surveillance footage and witness testimony clearly show the parent taking the medication without paying. Yet, the jury delivers a "not guilty" verdict.

  This demonstrates jury nullification because the jury, while recognizing the theft occurred, might find that convicting a parent under such desperate circumstances would be profoundly unjust and immoral. Their decision reflects a belief that the law, when strictly applied, would lead to an outcome that violates their fundamental sense of fairness and compassion.