How does the US legal system look upon "rogue jurors"?

Question

I also know how to use Wikipedia. Please don't copy and paste answers from that site.

Answer 1

Well, rogue jurors in the sense that they vote according to their beliefs? There's not much the legal system can do.

The primary reason for having a jury of your peers, instead of some professional jurist, is that a jury can go beyond their instructions, although they are never told this. A jury decides the verdict to make sure "justice" is served, not necessarily that the law was followed. A jury can acquit because they believe the law is being unfairly applied, disagree with the law, or the defendent is being persecuted unfairly. They can acquit if they believe defense evidence has been unfairly witheld from them.

The Libertarians have been pushing for the Fully Informed Jury Act for decades to make sure jurists are informed of these facts, but with little success.

This is also a good way to get out of a trial. If you are being queried as to whether you will follow court instructions, you can say that you might not because of the reasons above. You'll be excused no problem.

It's also called Jury Nullification.

In case you can't tell, I'm a big believer in Jury Nullification. Oh if I were ever called to serve on a jury, odds are I'd follow the instructions, but I'd always keep those 3 questions in my mind. Is the law being applied fairly? Is the law fair? Is justice being served?

Answer 2

Tough call. American jurisprudence is nothing of the kind run by rogues.

Answer 3

For your reading pleasure. By the way, I did not paste it, I actually bothered to type it in for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hung_jury