213-375-3775
FREE CONSULTATIONS
California Criminal Law and Jury Nullification Jury nullification occurs when a jury refuses to convict a defendant, because the jurors believe that the law itself is unjust. Historically, jury nullification has sparked some interesting debates. For one, jurors are supposed to represent the voice of the people. Indeed, a trial by an individual’s peers is written in the U.S. Constitution. If our forefathers found this to be such an important part on the checks and balances of the government, why is it such a point of contention? In 2008, the California Supreme Court decided that judges may remove jurors who declare their morals above the law. Under the California Penal Code, the court may excuse a juror who refuses to follow the judge’s instructions. The court also has the authority to dismiss jurors who are unable to perform their duties. In either of these situations, the court will simply bring in an alternate juror. Defendants have argued that jurors should not be excused under the idea of jury nullification. This makes sense, because if there is a juror that disagrees with the law, itself, that juror is less likely to convict the defendant. The defendant, therefore, would want that juror on the jury. Jurors are supposed to provide representation of the community, as well as acceptable societal norms. However, it is now common practice to legislate around the foundation of the juror’s role. For example, there are several areas of law in which the legislature provides that jurors are not to be instructed regarding statutory limitations on damages in civil suits. Today, the judge and the jury play separate roles. The judge has the authority to deny the jury the opportunity to act beyond its prescribed role as fact finder. The modern judicial system is set up to allow the judge to make determinations of law and fact, whereas the jury is only responsible for fact finding. Although fact finding may seem like a less important task than findings of law, the jury is actually quite powerful – in that it may refuse to find any fact, notwithstanding the amount or strength of evidence to support it that fact. However, if a jury makes a finding of fact, it cannot refuse to render the verdict that accompanies the finding of that fact. It is this constraint that affects the idea of jury nullification. The jury must accept the law as it is given by the court, and then apply the given law to their findings of fact. Jury nullification brings up some legitimate questions. While it does seem as though the founders greatly valued a “trial by jury,” did they value this concept notwithstanding cases where jurors wish to completely disregard the law? Does “trial by jury” actually mean “trial by jury as long as they accept the law?” Some legal scholars also make the argument that if a juror is willing to violate their oath, this says something about their overall integrity. If a juror’s moral compass is off, this could significantly affect the integrity of the judicial system in that case. Although the roles of judge and jury see a separation today, the idea of jury nullification still raises arguments and questions. Those for jury nullification view it as a basic constitutional protection against unjust laws. Those against jury nullification argue that it allows the unqualified jury to take on a legislative function. Those who argue against jury nullification say that deciding whether a law is unjust should be left to legislators, who have the time to consider the ramifications and public policy considerations before enacting the law. However, there is also an argument that jury nullification is the only way to remedy representational discrepancies of race in our legislative bodies. Though attorneys are precluded from asking for jury nullification, many jurors will refuse to convict in certain types of cases, particularly cases involving marijuana and medical marijuana.
0 Comments
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
"Mr. Loncar has a great reputation in the legal community. I highly endorse his service to anyone in need of legal help."
-Attorney Andrew Leone HOME | ATTORNEY PROFILE | PRACTICE AREAS | KNOW YOUR RIGHTS | BLOG | CONTACT | PASSION AND PERSONAL SERVICE The Law Offices of Nicholas Loncar, located on Wilshire Boulevard in Los Angeles, provide tenacious, passionate and affordable criminal defense to clients throughout Southern California. If you're facing criminal charges or are under investigation, contact our office today for a free consultation. LA Attorney Nicholas Loncar is deeply committed to criminal defense and fights hard for his clients in every case.
Law Offices of Nicholas Loncar
1200 Wilshire Blvd
Los Angeles,
CA
90017
Phone: 213-375-3775
URL of Map Useful LA Criminal Defense Resources:
LA Inmate Locator LA Superior Court LAPD Online LA County Law Library LA Felony Bail Schedule LA Misdemeanor Bail Schedule |
LOS ANGELES CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY | ATTORNEY PROFILE | PRACTICE AREAS | KNOW YOUR RIGHTS | BLOG | CONTACT
LEGAL DISCLAIMER: The information above is attorney advertisement and is provided for informational purposes only. This site and its
contents do not provide any legal advice nor does receipt of this information create an attorney-client relationship.
© 2022 by the Law Offices of Nicholas M. Loncar. All rights reserved. Sitemap
contents do not provide any legal advice nor does receipt of this information create an attorney-client relationship.
© 2022 by the Law Offices of Nicholas M. Loncar. All rights reserved. Sitemap