Question for any lawyers or familiar with law.

[rcrush]

Someone sent me this in an email about a jury that found a man that was on trial for marijuana possession not guilty through jury nullification.

"According to Dan Churney at MyWebTimes, several jurors were seen shaking Swift’s hand after the verdict, a couple of them were talking and laughing with Swift and his lawyer, and one juror slapped Swift on the back.
swiftloren Maybe *This* Is How The War On Marijuana Ends
The 59-year-old was arrested after officers from a state “drug task force” found 25 pounds of pot and 50 pounds of growing plants in his home in 2007. The Vietnam veteran walks with a cane, has bad knees and feet and says he uses marijuana to relieve body pain, as well as to help cope with post traumatic stress.

This jury exercised their right of jury nullification. Judges and prosecutors never tell you this, but when you serve on a jury, it’s not just the defendant on trial. It’s the law as well. If you don’t like the law and think applying it in this particular case would be unjust, then you don’t have to find the defendant guilty, even if the evidence clearly indicates guilt.

In jury nullification, a jury in a criminal case effectively nullifies a law by acquitting a defendant regardless of the weight of evidence against him or her. There is intense pressure within the legal system to keep this power under wraps. But the fact of the matter is that when laws are deemed unjust, there is the right of the jury not to convict.

Jury nullification is crucially important because until our national politicians show some backbone on the issue of marijuana law reform, it’s one of the only ways to avoid imposing hideously cruel “mandatory minimum” penalties on marijuana users who don’t deserve to go to prison.

Prosecuting and jailing people for marijuana wastes valuable resources, including court and police time and tax dollars. Hundreds of thousands of otherwise productive, law-abiding people have been deprived of their freedom, their families, their homes and their jobs. Let’s save the jails for real criminals, not pot smokers."


So is that pretty much true? Can a jury decide to not punish someone if they believe its wrong? Even if they are clearly "guilty"?

[LostinVA]

1. Jury Nullification is actually when a judge overrides a jury

Both that and what you posted care allowed in some courts for certain offenses.

[TexasObserver]

6. Jury nullification is the action of the jury, not the judge.

When the judge overrides the jury, it's not called jury nullification. It's called setting aside the verdict. In a criminal case this can be done where the judge finds the jury failed to carry out its duty, or made inferences not supported by the evidence admitted at trial.

[merh]

7. JNOV is when a judge acquits despite the finding of guilt

Judgment notwithstanding the verdict

Jury nullification is the action of the jury - as the poster has written, that they acquit despite the evidence and the law given by the court (jury instructions).

[stranger81]

2. Yes, jury nullification is real and not prohibited, though not very common.

Jurors are usually given instructions by the Court that, if followed, would preclude jury nullification, but in the event the jury engages in the practice anyway, there is no legal recourse for the losing party.

[rgbecker]

3. Last time I served as a Juror, here's what happened...

The charge was trespassing against a guy who went to a bar and sat there quietly without ordering a drink or saying anything. The testimony indicated that he didn't try to start a fight or offend anyone, it was apparently just a case of the owner not liking the guy and wanting him out. He was a notorious street person, black and had a history of being a pain in the neck around the small town. The owner did everything right, calling the police, having the police tell the guy he had to leave as he was trespassing etc. and it seemed a open and shut case. We didn't buy it, I told the other jurors that I wasn't going to send a guy to jail for going into a public bar, that opened its door to the public, with a town issued liqueur license, with no published list of "offenders" (Drinking problems). The others agreed and we said not guilty. The judge and lawyers were clearly surprised but that was that. In the end, the jury has the say. Essentially a basic American constitutional right.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

4. Pretty Much...Courts and Lawyers hate it...

I want to remember their being multiple incidents where leaflets were distributed around a courthouse during trials and the judges went nuts over it. Dismissed jurors and even a few mistrials.

I have been on a jury before the concept was popular...we let a defendant who was clearly technically guilty because we felt the law and prosecution was unjust, though none of us came out and admitted it.

[TexasObserver]

5. Isn't the defendant in question a member of DU?

I thought I read that when the story came out a few weeks back.

In answer to your question, YES, jury nullification is real. We do not allow double jeopardy, so a person cannot be tried for the same crime twice. However, that doctrine does not take into account a modern wrinkle: there are different state and federal charges that can result from the same event or facts. The feds, who still take a very anti-marijuana stance, could decide to prosecute the guy under one of their provisions of federal law.