Can a juror acquit a defendant if they believe the law being used to prosecute them is unconstitutional?

Question

This case comes to mind:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/06/teen.sex.case.ap/index.html

Answer 1

Well, it would take the whole jury, but yes, that's called jury nullification. For more, look here:

Answer 2

Jurors can ignore the law and acquit someone if they feel the law is immoral, unjust, being unjustly applied, or for just about any other reason. AS mentioned in other answers, this is called jury nullification. However, jurors are NOT instructed on this fundamental right. Many people are aware of this right, however, and have invoked it. For example, the first few trials of Jack Kevorkian ended in acquittals not so much because of lack of proof, but the jurors thought he was morally correct and the law was wrong. Lawyers and judges do NOT want juries to nullify. They want you to believe you are bound to follow the law as the judge gives it to you. That is a narrow view of jury duty and not in keeping with the philosphy of the jury system itself -- ie. jury of your peers to reflect societal norms.

Answer 3

Not legally. The question of constitutionality is reserved to the court, which resolves the issue without a jury.

Of course, as a practical matter, if the jury acquits because the law is unconstitutional, there is no legal basis to re-examine the verdict. That is the basis of jury nullification, which has been a reality ever since the New York Supreme Court acquitted John Peter Zenger.

Answer 4

Without reading the article, think about your question. If someone breaks the law, regardless of its perceived constitutionality, they are entitled to a trial with a jury of their peers. If the prosecution proves that the law was broken by the individual on trial, the jury must convict. If the defense adequately argues that the law is biased, unfair, or was inequitably applied to the defendant, then the jury can acquit. Even if convicted, the defendant can appeal the verdict and/or the constitutionality of the law used to convict them.

Answer 5

No. The jury has to follow the rule of law. It is up to the lawmakers to change the law or close loopholes that allow procecutors to unjustifiably upgrade a minor charge to a major one. The lawmakers intent of what the bill was to accomplish and how it was to be used should have been the criteria used to see if the defendant justifiably deserved that charge.

Answer 6

Your supposed to use only the facts presented during the trial, not what happened before the crime in question, or after. You cannot use your own morals, nor your beliefs. Juts what is presented during the trial. Your personal feelings have no place in a court of law. (Been there).

I was on a jury for a rape trial. The prosecution didn't give us enough to convict. Found out later this man had rapped the same woman two years previous, and was currently doing time for attempted rape, but we weren't allowed this info.

Answer 7

The regulation follows Federal Statutes to a T. Federal brokers can call for data of legal status every time they choose, what's defective with Arizona police doing it. And by utilising the way, drugs are unlawful by utilising "federal regulation". inspite of the undeniable certainty that, guy or female states do make up regulations continuously suitable to how they're going to enforce it, if in any admire. In ny, a small quantity of Marijuana is a cost value ticket like pissing in public. In Virginia, you're able to be able to prefer to do time. by utilising the way, it's going to be declared unconstitutional. that could require the terrific courtroom, which besides the incontrovertible fact that holds a conservative stability. you as properly to could must be conscious that the courts have not have been given a self beginning mechanism. a private citizen ought to project the regulation and placed in the process it to courtroom.

Answer 8

Yes jurors have a right and a duty to judge the law .The judge lies to juries when they tell them thery are only to judge the facts .Its called jurry nullification .Juries were put in place so people could protect each other from bad laws and bad govt . Not to convict people for an opressive govt. There is no justice in courts for people today .Judges have betrayed the people and their offices to protect the people from tyranny by govt.
Fundamental juridical rights, such as the Habeas Corpus and Trial by Jury, help prevent the oppression of individual citizens by limiting the capacity of government officials to persecute persons based on trumped-up charges or non-existent offenses
It is (the jury’s )right ,and primary and paramount duty to judge the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid that are in (its)opinion, unjust or oppressive and all persons guiltless in violating or resisting the execution of such laws- Lysander Spooner(1852)
Trial by Jury
Trial by jury is another constitutional protection for the rights of the people. By assuring that the people themselves participate in the judicial process, governing authorities are prevented from unjustly prosecuting individuals. Trial by jury assumes that the people themselves are the best guardians of their own rights, and that they will release from custody any person unjustly charged. It also allows the people to make unjust laws of no effect with their power of jury nullification
"The juries [are] our judges of all fact, and of law when they choose it." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:35

Answer 9

Jurors can acquit a defendant for any reason, they do not have to justify their decision in any way. They are given instructions that usually include an admonition to only consider the evidence presented and the law as read to them, but when they deliberate, they are answerable to no one else.

Answer 10

Technically, only the Supreme Court can declare a law unconstitutional.

Answer 11

I don't know about the constitutionality...but serious pressure needs to be applied to the Governor for a pardon...or throw the bum out of office next election.This is insanity.