Does a jury have a right to disregard the law (to a certain extent) and decide what they want?

Answer 1

Absent a corrupt motive (bribery for example), a jury may do whatever it wishes. The outcome differs depending on the circumstances.

A jury which returns a not guilty verdict in a criminal case has engaged in so called "jury nullification." There is nothing the prosecution can do about this.

If a jury in a criminal case returns a guilty verdict in derogation of the law then the court may enter a verdict of not guilty "non obstante verdicto" (not withstanding the verdict).

If a jury in a civil case returns a judgment that does not comport with the law then the court may set aside the verdict or adjust the relief granted. the latter is called either additur or remittor depending on the circumstances.

Answer 2

The jury is the trier of the facts in a case the Judge is the trier of the Laws that apply. The most radical thing a Jury can do is answer a verdict in the form of Ignoramus! Ergo argue that the state never produced anything worth consideration in the form of a Bill of complaints or crimes and hence no true Bill was found!

somebody mentioned jury nullification, but my understanding is the exact opposite of theirs! A jury can come back with a verdict and if the judge believes they ignored a key legal factor they can Nullified, told to go home, or go to hell, but they are out of there.

Then again, some courts have even denied a jury find of Ignoramus!

Answer 3

A jury is not told that they can disregard the law but if they take it upon themselves, yes, the jury nullification answers are correct. The nonprevailing party can then move for the judge to issue a jnov (judgment not withstanding the verdict).

Answer 4

No, the jury is instructed in how to make its decision.

If they over-rule that in the jury room and decide what they want, that is "jury nullification."

There is no punishment that I know of for jury nullification unless it is accompanied by misconduct such as jury tampering.

In a criminal matter, if a jury decides on a verdict of innocent, there is no further trial (due to the protection against double jeopardy). However, depending on state laws, a civil trial for damages can still be brought against a person who has been declared innocent of criminal charges.

Answer 5

They are not supposed to do this. But the system is not allowed to ask why they chose what they chose.

However, the judge can set aside any verdict except an acquittal in a criminal trial, so as a practical matter jury nullification is allowable only in that circumstance. Otherwise a judge can override a completely "unreasonable" jury.

Answer 6

They are instructed by the judge, but may do what tehy want. The judge can then toss out their findings if they are contrary to the law. There is some flexibility to interpret the law to the situation though & some precedence for the jury to desiregard laws widely seen to be morally wrong & wrongly applied by the prosecutor. It's a gray area defense attorneys for guilty clients live in.

Answer 7

Yes, it's called jury nullification.

Jury nullification occurs when a jury returns a verdict of "Not Guilty" despite its belief that the defendant is guilty of the violation charged. The jury in effect nullifies a law that it believes is either immoral or wrongly applied to the defendant whose fate that are charged with deciding.

Answer 8

To put it simply, a jury in a criminal action can make any finding and it cannot be challanged. In a civil action it can be set asdie by the court id it is beileved to be against the weight of the evidence.

Answer 9

yes-jury nullification. but they cant go the other way, and decide that even though the person isnt guilty of the crime theyve been accused of, theyll convict anyways

Answer 10

NO...They are always instructed by the judge as to how they must decide their decisions..........and it is always by law