I am a career prosecutor, now retired. Every argument for jury nullification I have ever read assumes it to be a device by which some higher form of justice can be achieved than the rule-bound parameters of the law will allow. Specifically, it assumes a verdict of not guilty where guilt has otherwise been established as a matter of fact and law.
The oppressed accused escapes the relentless maw of justice. But the inescapable corollary is that, where there is a failure of evidence to support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the principle of nullification would permit a jury to convict anyway. (Think of “To Kill a Mockingbird.”)
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
