Frequently Asked
Questions
Find answers to common questions about jury nullification, including whether it is legal, why courts generally do not instruct jurors about it, historical examples, jury selection, and jury deliberations.
Disclaimer: This page is intended for educational purposes only. It provides historical and legal information about jury nullification and is not legal advice or guidance about how any individual should vote in a particular case. Jurors should always follow the instructions given by the court.
What is jury nullification?
Jury nullification occurs when jurors return a verdict of not guilty even though they believe the prosecution proved its case, because they conclude that applying the law in that particular case would lead to an unjust result.
Is jury nullification legal?
A jury has the power to return a not guilty verdict, and an acquittal generally cannot be overturned. However, judges typically instruct jurors to apply the law as they explain it and generally do not instruct juries about jury nullification.
Why aren't jurors told about jury nullification?
Most courts do not include jury nullification in their standard jury instructions. The prevailing judicial view is that jurors should decide cases by applying the law as instructed by the judge.
Can I discuss jury nullification during jury deliberations?
This is a complex issue. Courts have, in some circumstances, removed jurors who openly state an intention to disregard the law. Because practices vary, many legal commentators and advocacy organizations advise jurors to proceed cautiously when discussing jury nullification explicitly during deliberations.
Should I mention jury nullification during jury selection (voir dire)?
Generally, no. Bringing it up during jury selection may affect whether you are selected to serve. If asked direct questions by the judge or attorneys, you should always answer honestly.
Can lawyers argue for jury nullification during a trial?
In many courts, attorneys are not permitted to explicitly ask jurors to disregard the law or argue for jury nullification.
Can a judge overturn a not guilty verdict?
No. A jury's acquittal is generally final because of the constitutional protection against double jeopardy.
Is every not guilty verdict jury nullification?
No. Most not guilty verdicts simply mean the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Has jury nullification happened before?
Yes. It has appeared throughout English and American legal history, including cases involving freedom of the press, the Fugitive Slave Act, and Prohibition.
Can jurors be punished for voting not guilty?
Jurors generally cannot be punished simply because they voted to acquit. However, jurors are expected to follow the court's instructions and perform their duties honestly.
Where can I learn more?
Explore the history of jury nullification, landmark cases, and different legal perspectives through our educational resources.
DISCLAIMER:
This project does not seek to encourage unethical jury practices but aims to raise awareness about the concept and principles of jury nullification and the role it plays in the justice system. We do not seek to promote jury tampering, nor do we aim to influence any manipulation of the judicial process, including but not limited to the jury. We believe in promoting transparency and fairness in the judicial system, to maintain system integrity and public faith, and support actions that ensure justice is served.
This is an independent campaign, operated by a non-profit organization. It operates on a not-for-profit basis, ensuring all funds raised are directly invested in educational initiatives. Its goal is simply to educate New Yorkers about jurors' rights and their role in ensuring a fair justice system. Citzens for Jury Empowerment (CFJE) does not endorse illegal activities and is not affiliated with any external entities.
Statement of Intent and Compliance (Purpose and Legal Position)
Our message states our aim is to inform about jurors' rights and the significance of jury nullification within the legal system, without attempting to affect trial outcomes. Legal experts have reviewed our campaign to ensure compliance with legal and ethical standards. This reaffirms our dedication to fostering informed public discourse, grounding our approach in openness and integrity. We believe that individuals whose conduct is considered reprehensible should be held to account, while also upholding the legal principle that all are innocent until proven guilty. Should there be any misinterpretation of our campaign's intent, we clarify that such perceptions do not reflect our stated objectives, and any misunderstanding is due to individual interpretation, not our clearly stated purpose or beliefs. The responsibility for interpretations of the campaign lies within the hands of each individual; we are not liable for any misperceptions or misunderstandings, given our explicitly stated objective. Any deviation from this understanding is left to the interpreter's discretion.
We do not engage in commentary or take positions on legal matters. Our advertisements serve merely as a conversation starter to ignite a broader discussion on an important legal principle. Our mission is strictly educational; we are not here to advocate for any individual, specific cause, or any prospective case for that matter, but to foster a deeper understanding among the public. We maintain no personal opinions or stances on this matter, and should any such views be formed in the future, they would not affect our campaign. Furthermore, our personal perspectives are immaterial, as this matter falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of the court. Citizens for Jury Empowerment (CFJE) remains impartial in its operations and steadfast in its commitment to respect all legal proceedings, advocating for principles of good faith and justice.