What is Jury Nullification and is it legal in the State of Washington?

Question

The last time I served on a Jury, the Judge harped on endlessly on Jury Nullification.

He claimed to be God-Like [he really did] and said that the Jury was not allowed in HIS courtroom to nullify any laws as he[the Judge] chose to explain them.

He never did explain exactly whata Jury Nullification was.

So ........... what is it and is it legal in the State of Washington?

Answer 1

My answer about the definition of nullification is the same as Patrick's, and I don't know about "legality" in your or any other state.

The first time I heard about nullification was during a presentation by a couple of guys from a group called "Fully Informed Jury Association, (FIJA)." They said that it is always the right of juries to nullify the law, but that many judges are instructing juries the way you talked about. "FIJA" said, during this presentation, that when judges say to the jury the same kind of things that your judge said to you, those judges are completely misinforming the jury. "FIJA" deems it to be their mission in life to "inform juries" of their right to nullify -- to find a defendent not guilty (even though the evidence of guilt is overwhelming) because of a feeling that the law is unjust and either 1) should not be applied to anyone or 2) should not be applied to this particular defendant. "FIJA" hands out pamphlets outside of courthouses to people who might be prospective jurors to let them know that if the judge says what your judge said, don't pay attention to that "instruction," because the judge is lying.

However, when I listened to this presentation by "FIJA," there were two trial-court judges who were in the room also listening to it. Both of those judges said that they NEVER say that kind of thing to any juries in any of the trials they preside over and that they have never heard of any other judge ever saying it. And there was also an assistant prosecutor listening. He stood up and said that he was very, very disturbed at the amount of misinformation that "FIJA" was doling out during that presentation.

Answer 2

Up until the 1880s it was common for a judge to instruct a jury that they had the responsibility to decide the facts of the case and to decide the applicability of the law. That is, separate from the case itself, the jury could review the law being applied in the case and decide that such a law was wrong or wrongly being applied and nullify the application of the law in this one particular case by acquitting the one charged.

This is a power of the jury which has its roots in Magna Carta (1215 CE) and it still exists. It is the last barrier of the people to restrain an overly intrusive government. However, not all judges and attorneys agree with this jury power. These individuals want a jury with a mind like a blank slate that only they can write upon. Such is not part of our Common Law heritage. Even so, don’t ever tell a judge that you support jury nullification, they don’t like it and can be quite vindictive, but behind the closed doors of the jury room you (as the jury) can do as you wish.

Much more can be found at the home page of the Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA) at the source link.

Answer 3

Jury nullification is when a jury willingly finds a defendant not guilty of a crime that they committed because they feel that the law is unfair. Technically, juries are not supposed to nullify laws, but there's nothing that the government can do about it. Check out the Wikipedia entry for more information.

Answer 4

Not only in Washington, but most states are trying to rid of nullification. The Judge and the jury can pass sentences to the person in court. He can decided, which sentence he wants. This law came to America from England in 1735. In the beginning the judge have to tell the acuse.

Answer 5

The best example of jury nullification I remember was in the case of Dr. Jack Kevorkian, the physician who helped patients to do doctor-assisted suicide.

When the case was brought in MI, the jurors agreed that the facts added up to what would be murder for anybody else. But Dr. Kevorkian's intention was so clear, to assist someone who wanted to end his own life, that they found the doctor not guilty anyway. That was jury nullification.

It would be legal in any state where they have jury trials, because the jurors make it so. The judge cannot convict when the jury says the guy's innocent.

Answer 6

the above post outlined the definition of jury nullification. but as stated their is nothing a judge can do about a jury verdict, the judge can not question how they can to the decision, and the judge must abide by the decision of the jury even if they decided to ignore the law

Answer 7

this relies upon upon what you mean through "felony"? might want to a juror be punished in any way for balloting "no longer accountable" depending upon his view that the regulation is arbitrary? No. Is it mistaken for a prefer to inform the jury they ought to no longer do this? No. carry out slightly juries do it even after being informed now to not? i'm positive they do. might want to the regulation rather enable it? per chance, even with the undeniable fact that I worry the different side of the coin: we do not imagine the defendant did it, yet we will convict him besides because we anticipate of he might want to bypass to reformatory. I do be conscious that regardless of the "common regulation" will be, any regulation might want to get replaced through the legislature. even with the very undeniable actuality that the percentages of having a legislature to bypass a regulation both allowing jury nullification, or forbidding a prefer to prepare a jury now to not do it, are really low, the percentages might want to be so a lot more desirable helpful in a state legislature than in congress. If it really is something you sense strongly about, i might want to represent writing your state legislators, no longer your congress member.