598:
the jury's power of nullification. But the revulsion and sense of shame fostered by that practice fueled the civil rights movement, which in turn made possible the enactment of major civil rights legislation. That same movement spurred on the revitalization of the equal protection clause and, in particular, the recognition of the right to be tried before a jury selected without bias. The lessons we learned from these abuses helped to create a climate in which such abuses could not so easily thrive." However, Julian
Heicklen disputed this: "The problem with the all-white juries that refused to convict whites that committed crimes against blacks was not in jury nullification, but in jury selection. The jury was not representative of the community and would not provide a fair and impartial trial."
559:, founding father and one of the leading legal theorists of the day, was one of the only sources from the era that addressed jury nullification. He defended the jury's right to render a general verdict (to determine the law as well as the fact). However, in rendering that verdict, he asserted that juries must "determine those questions, as judges must determine them, according to law." He noted that the law was "governed by precedents, and customs, and authorities, and maxims," that are "alike obligatory upon jurors as upon judges, in deciding questions of law." In essence, Wilson was arguing that juries must not disregard the law because laws are the result of due process by legal representatives of the people.
398:
court had not disclosed to the jury. Additionally, while not asked about her opinions about the fairness of the drug laws or her own legal history, she was prosecuted for obstruction of justice for failing to volunteer this information on her own. The trial court found "that Kriho had intended to obstruct the judicial process and that her actions had prevented the seating of a fair and impartial jury", but after four years of legal battles the charges were dropped when a district court ruled that her statements during secret jury deliberations could not be used against her. It has been argued that improved protection of the holdout juror is a necessary and critical component to the preservation of a defendant's
163:, were tried in 1969 for conspiracy to disrupt a draft induction center, and the jury acquitted after being told by the judge that it could acquit if it felt the defendants' actions were protected by First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and assembly. Likewise, in a case involving ten Seattle protestors accused of blocking a munitions train carrying bombs destined for Vietnam, the jury acquitted after the judge allowed the defendants to talk about their motives and permitted the defense to ask the jurors to invoke their consciences and object to the war by acquitting.
414:
as valid jury nullification. You would violate your oath and the law if you willfully brought a verdict contrary to the law given to you in this case." In the analysis, it determined that "it is well established that jurors have the power to nullify. Moreover, the statement that 'here is no such thing as valid jury nullification' could be understood as telling jurors that they do not have the power to nullify, and so it would be a useless exercise. Accordingly, we find that the last two sentences of the trial court's nullification instructions were erroneous."
269:
jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. On this, and on every other occasion, however, we have no doubt, you will pay that respect, which is due to the opinion of the court: For, as on the one hand, it is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumable, that the court are the best judges of the law. But still both objects are lawfully, within your power of decision.
460:
that produced the racist juries had also elected racist police, prosecutors, and judges. Such cases were rarely prosecuted at all, and when they were, due to outside political pressure, only the minimum effort to go through the motions of a trial was made, with jury selection systems crafted by political leaders to exclude non-whites. Reviewing Conrad's book, University of
Tennessee law professor Glenn Reynolds wrote that jury nullification is parallel with the doctrine of
100:, the U.S. Supreme Court directed a jury that although they would ordinarily be expected to follow the judge's directions, they could not be compelled to do so. By the middle of the 19th century, some judges sought to distance themselves from this position, increasingly holding that it was for judges to decide what the law said or meant, and that it was the jurors' duty to follow these judicial interpretations. In 1895, in
291:, held that a trial judge has no responsibility to inform the jury of its right to nullify laws. It was a 5–4 decision. Often cited, it has led United States judges to commonly penalize anyone who attempts to present legal argument to jurors and to declare a mistrial if such argument has been presented to them. In some states, jurors are likely to be struck from the panel during
323:…by clearly stating to the jury that they may disregard the law, telling them that they may decide according to their prejudices or consciences (for there is no check to ensure that the judgment is based upon conscience rather than prejudice), we would indeed be negating the rule of law in favor of the rule of lawlessness. This should not be allowed.
315:
minds of the jurors to find the basis upon which they judge. If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused, is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision.
361:, the jury asked the judge about jury nullification. The judge responded, "There is no such thing as valid jury nullification." The jury convicted the defendant. On appeal, the majority and the dissent agreed that the trial judge's instruction was untrue, but the majority held that this false representation was not a reversible error.
476:
weight of the evidence, but it is the duty of the court to advise you as to the law, and it is your duty to consider the instructions of the court; yet in your decision upon the merits of the case you have a right to determine for yourselves the law as well as the facts by which your verdict shall be governed.
177:, saying that no one "would say that breaking into a ship shouldn't be criminal, shouldn't be a crime", but that it was justified under the circumstances. There was also a case in which a jury voted 9–3 to acquit peace activists despite their admission that they poured blood in a military recruiting center.
459:
Jury scholar and attorney Clay Conrad argues that there is nothing wrong with jury nullification: it is part and parcel of what a jury is all about. Conrad extensively reviews cases of jury nullification in cases of racist juries acquitting in cases of pro-segregation violence. The racist communities
386:
led to a new rule requiring jurors to inform the judge whenever a fellow juror appears to be deciding a case based on his or her dislike of a law. But the ruling cannot overturn the practice of jury nullification itself because of double jeopardy: a defendant who has been acquitted of a charge cannot
314:
We recognize, as appellants urge, the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge, and contrary to the evidence. This is a power that must exist as long as we adhere to the general verdict in criminal cases, for the courts cannot search the
475:
You are instructed that this being a criminal case you are the exclusive judges of the evidence, the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony, and you have a right also to determine the law in the case. The court does not intend to express any opinion concerning the
413:
reviewed the jury's instruction: "You cannot substitute your sense of justice, whatever that means, for your duty to follow the law, whether you agree with it or not. It is not for you to determine whether the law is just or whether the law is unjust. That cannot be your task. There is no such thing
372:
ruled that jurors can be removed if there is evidence that they intend to nullify the law, under
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 23(b). But the Second Circuit also held that the court must not remove a juror for an alleged refusal to follow the law as instructed unless the record leaves no doubt
135:
In the 21st century, many discussions of jury nullification center around drug laws that many consider unjust either in principle or because they disproportionately affect members of certain groups. A jury nullification advocacy group estimates that 3–4% of all jury trials involve nullification, and
377:
We categorically reject the idea that, in a society committed to the rule of law, jury nullification is desirable or that courts may permit it to occur when it is within their authority to prevent. Accordingly, we conclude that a juror who intends to nullify the applicable law is no less subject to
349:
wrote an opinion dissenting in part, arguing that the jury should be informed of its power to render a verdict according to its conscience if the law is unjust. He wrote that refusal to allow the jury to be so informed constitutes a "deliberate lack of candor". It has been argued that the denial of
597:
argued, "One often-cited abuse of the nullification power is the acquittal by bigoted juries of whites who commit crimes (lynching, for example) against blacks. That repellent practice cannot be directly arrested without jeopardizing important constitutional protections-the double jeopardy bar and
521:
Whoever attempts to influence the action or decision of any grand or petit juror of any court of the United States upon any issue or matter pending before such juror, or before the jury of which he is a member, or pertaining to his duties, by writing or sending to him any written communication, in
397:
was the sole juror holdout in a drug possession trial, one eventually declared a mistrial. Kriho was found in contempt of court and charged with perjury and obstruction of justice for learning from the
Internet that the defendant could face a four- to 12-year prison term if convicted, a fact the
455:
Some advocacy groups and websites argue that private parties in cases where the government is the opponent have the right to have juries be instructed that they have the right and duty to render a verdict contrary to legal positions they believe to be unjust or unconstitutional. These and other
131:
Kalven's and Zeisel's study of the
American jury found that juries acquitted when judges would have convicted in only 19% of cases, and of these, only 21% of the acquittals were attributable to jury nullification. Jury nullification sometimes takes the form of a jury convicting the defendant of
268:
It may not be amiss, here, Gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule, that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable distribution of
27:
occurs when a jury in a criminal case reaches a verdict contrary to the weight of evidence, sometimes because of a disagreement with the relevant law. It has its origins in colonial
America under British law. The American jury draws its power of nullification from its right to render a
1176:"...the court can also attempt to prevent such an occurrence of juror nullification by (1) informing prospective jurors at the outset that jurors have no authority to disregard the law and (2) obtaining their assurance that they will not do so if chosen to serve on the jury."
569:
Some have argued that it is not sufficient to instruct jurors that they may judge the law if legal arguments are not made to them, that such incomplete information may indeed do more harm than good, and that we must return to the standard of due process represented by the
219:, told the press that he would urge the jury to disregard the law. Prosecutors prevailed upon the judge to enter a pretrial order banning any mention of nullification during the trial, but Fieger's statements had already been extensively reported in the media.
111:
era, some all-white juries acquitted white defendants accused of murdering blacks, but the problem, according to some scholars, was "not in jury nullification, but in jury selection. The jury was not representative of the community". During
273:
Although no precedent revokes the power of nullification, since the 19th century courts have tended to restrain juries from considering it, and to insist on their deference to court-given law. The first major decision in this direction was
517:. The maximum penalty is 6 months' incarceration. Because Heicklen was charged with a misdemeanor, he was not entitled to a jury trial. The statute under which Heicklen was charged, Title 18 USC Section 1504, reads in pertinent part:
545:, courthouse. The felony charge was dismissed. He was convicted on the misdemeanor jury tampering charge in a jury trial in which Mecosta County Circuit Judge Kimberly Booher ruled against arguing a first amendment defense.
116:, juries often nullified alcohol control laws, possibly as often as 60% of the time, because of disagreements with the justice of the law. This resistance is considered to have contributed to the adoption of the
334:
256:, the Supreme Court directly tried a common law case before a jury. The facts in the case were not in dispute, and the legal opinion of the court was unanimous, but the Court was nonetheless obligated under the
140:(from an average of 5% to nearly 20% in some locales) is seen by some as indirect evidence that juries have begun to consider the validity or fairness of the laws themselves (though other reasons such as the
585:
There is some question as to whether jury nullification should be disallowed in cases where there is an identifiable crime victim. Jury nullification has more support among legal academics than judges.
155:, sought jury nullification. Spock was convicted of conspiracy to counsel, aid, and abet registrants to avoid the draft, after the judge instructed the jury to apply the law as he laid it down, but the
605:
has passed a statute making a certain behavior a crime, the evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant engaged in that behavior, and the accused has no defense to the charge.
117:
501:, a jury nullification activist who had made a regular practice of handing out information about jury nullification outside courthouses, was charged in federal court in Manhattan with
378:
dismissal than is a juror who disregards the court's instructions due to an event or relationship that renders him biased or otherwise unable to render a fair and impartial verdict.
121:
83:. The first four trials of the group resulted in three acquittals and one conviction, and the government dropped the remaining charges. Another case is the jury behavior after the
1157:
369:
301:
406:
156:
257:
1527:
33:
510:
351:
1283:
180:
Several recent cases have prompted speculation that the verdicts were products of jury nullification. These include the prosecution of
Washington, D.C.'s former
1623:
541:
and misdemeanor jury tampering after he handed out fliers, stating that jurors have the right to practice jury nullification, on the sidewalk in front of the
159:
overturned the conviction because the judge had committed prejudicial error in putting to the jury ten special yes-or-no questions. Eight defendants from
1777:
1064:
806:
1871:
173:
and the nature of the
Vietnam War. In one Vietnam-era case, the defense compared the defendants' actions in breaking into a government office to the
1689:
104:, the Supreme Court held that its own earlier decision had been wrong, and that a jury had a duty to apply the law as set out by the trial judge.
310:, affirmed the power of jury nullification but also upheld the power of the court to refuse to permit an instruction to the jury to this effect.
91:, a slave, the grand jury indicted three of those involved, but after an acquittal and several hung juries, the government dropped the charges.
1711:
60:
was acquitted in New York by a jury that nullified a law making it a crime to criticize public officials. Later, colonial juries nullified the
48:
The tradition of jury nullification in the United States has its roots in the
British legal system, specifically in a 1670 English case where
1001:
601:
Leipold points out that to argue that nullification prevents unfair prosecutions is to argue that it is unfair to convict a defendant when a
1642:
449:
445:
441:
169:
were acquitted despite overwhelming evidence of their guilt. In at least one case, the judge allowed the jury to hear testimony about the
373:
that the juror was engaged in deliberate misconduct—that he was not simply unpersuaded by the
Government's case against the defendants.
1444:
471:
was an advocate of jury nullification and suggested that the following instruction be given by judges to all juries in criminal cases:
973:
452:, is a supporter of jury nullification and has written extensively on the historic importance of juries as finders of fact and law.
181:
1019:
St. Patrick's Four: Jury Votes 9-3 to Acquit Peace Activists Despite Admission They Poured Blood in Military Recruiting Center, The
1830:
1533:
1017:
1414:
1352:
1229:
1069:
223:
125:
896:
635:"Jury nullification". Encarta dictionary. Microsoft Corporation. Archived from the original on 2009-11-01. Retrieved 2009-05-21.
226:
Professor Nancy J. King wrote, "recent reports suggest jurors today are balking in trials in which a conviction could trigger a
694:
481:
855:
1736:
1264:
556:
514:
437:
484:'s platform states, "We assert the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law."
1293:
1139:
345:
power to nullify the law but upheld the denial of the defense's chance to inform the jury of that power. Then-chief judge
589:
Jury nullification has also been criticized for having resulted in the acquittal of whites who victimized blacks in the
252:
96:
40:, which prohibits the appeal of an acquittal, and the fact that jurors cannot be punished for the verdict they return.
1876:
683:
835:
741:
In Ian Ward (Ed), 'A Cultural History of Law, Vol5: A Cultural History of Law in the Age of Reform' (Bloomsbury 2019)
1113:
1847:
421:
ruled that handing out jury nullification brochures to prospective jurors outside a courthouse does not constitute
329:
522:
relation to such issue or matter, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
387:
be charged with it a second time, even if the court later learns jury nullification played a role in the verdict.
614:
204:
32:
in criminal trials, the inability of criminal courts to direct a verdict no matter how strong the evidence, the
542:
461:
196:
297:
if they will not agree to accept as correct the rulings and instructions of the law as provided by the judge.
1668:
812:
456:
organizations contact citizens directly and lobby for legal reforms regarding instructions given to jurors.
72:
1744:
538:
418:
283:
37:
578:
cases. Some alleged costs of jury nullification include inconsistent verdicts and discouraging of guilty
1161:
399:
108:
1643:"I was speechless: Man charged with felony for passing out jury rights fliers in front of courthouse"
1288:
288:
264:'s nuanced instructions to the jury have been cited frequently in discussions of jury nullification:
231:
200:
319:
Nevertheless, in upholding the refusal to permit the jury to be so instructed, the Court held that:
1398:
498:
160:
509:. He has previously been cited several times for distributing fliers without a permit outside the
1797:
1096:
752:
468:
80:
71:, Northern juries, increasingly abolitionist, sometimes refused to convict for violations of the
68:
24:
916:
75:
because jurors hated the law, as it protected slaveowners. In 1851, 24 people were indicted for
52:
were acquitted by a jury of violating a law that permitted religious assemblies only under the
1209:
1133:
997:
969:
602:
227:
57:
53:
1789:
1758:
1086:
1078:
744:
594:
346:
235:
212:
174:
64:, which would have forced all trade with the colonies to pass through England for taxation.
1315:
948:
774:
562:
One opponent of jury nullification was former judge and unsuccessful Supreme Court nominee
1584:
239:
216:
170:
84:
61:
29:
789:
1430:
1396:
Abbott, Karen (August 11, 2000), "Case dropped against juror in methamphetamine trial",
1334:
502:
422:
390:
The Supreme Court of the United States has not recently confronted the issue directly.
383:
306:
208:
188:
152:
1164:
1865:
1153:
990:
912:
756:
717:
661:
166:
88:
20:
513:. Heicklen, a retired chemistry professor, was arraigned February 25, 2011 before a
1369:
1231:
Jury Nullification and the Pro Se Defense: The Impact of Dougherty v. United States
184:
87:
in Pennsylvania. Likewise, after a crowd broke into a Boston courtroom and rescued
76:
1690:"Jury finds man guilty of jury tampering after passing out juror rights pamphlets"
1609:
1065:"Silencing Nullification Advocacy Inside the Jury Room and Outside the Courtroom"
748:
1515:
1374:
563:
506:
394:
192:
148:
113:
841:
278:
which held that the bench could override the jury's verdict on a point of law.
590:
141:
1416:
Standing Alone: Conformity, Coercion, and the Protection of the Holdout Juror
737:"Arguments: Jury lawfinding and constitutional review in 1840s New Hampshire"
566:. In an essay, he wrote that jury nullification is a "pernicious practice".
293:
137:
548:
On July 28, 2020, the Michigan Supreme Court overturned Wood's conviction.
1462:
1829:
Horowitz, Irwin A.; Kerr, Norbert L.; Niedermeier, Keith E. (2000–2001),
433:
261:
1747:, (Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1967), 542.
1712:"Michigan Supreme Court Overturns Mecosta Co. Jury Tampering Conviction"
1669:"Judge Dismisses Felony Charge Against Michigan Jury Rights Pamphleteer"
1801:
1100:
526:
A federal judge dismissed the case against Heicklen on April 19, 2012.
49:
425:
because the activity is not targeted at jurors for any specific case.
1853:
1250:
1215:
1195:
1091:
535:
260:
to refer the matter to the jury for a general verdict. Chief Justice
107:
During the 19th and 20th centuries, especially in the 1950s and '60s
1793:
1270:
1082:
736:
1553:
1431:"United States v. Kleinman, 880 F.3d 1020, 1032-33 (9th Cir. 2017)"
1033:
Crispo, Lawrence W.; Slansky, Jill M.; Yriarte, Geanene M. (1997),
335:
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
579:
1493:
534:
On November 24, 2015, Keith Wood was arrested and charged with
382:
In 2001, a California Supreme Court ruling on a case involving
1624:"Case Against Jury-Nullification Advocate Heicklen Dismissed"
1568:
467:
The late Chief Justice of the Washington State Supreme Court
966:
To promote the general welfare: a communitarian legal reader
191:, the prosecution of the police officers accused of beating
1739:, "Of the Constituent Parts of Courts – Of the Juries," in
1504:
1337:(Spring 2000), "Review Essay: Of Dissent and Discretion",
530:
Keith Wood – Mecosta County, Michigan – November 24, 2015
350:
jury nullification requests negates much of the point of
1832:
Jury Nullification: Legal and Psychological Perspectives
992:
We, the jury: the jury system and the ideal of democracy
684:"Empowering the Jury as the Fourth Branch of Government"
1482:
1818:, vol. 6, Kan. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y, p. 49
935:
Jury Nullification: History, Practice, and Prospects
493:
Julian P. Heicklen – Teaneck, New Jersey – Fall 2010
157:
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
1180:, 141 Cal.App.4th 408 (July 14, 2006. No. C047785).
1816:Jury Nullification: Should the Type of Case Matter
989:
195:, the prosecution of two men charged with beating
1419:, vol. 40, U. Mich. J.L. Reform, p. 569
1114:"Games v. Stiles ex dem Dunn, 39 U.S. 322 (1840)"
898:Jury nullification: The contours of a controversy
768:
766:
1529:Jury Nullification: The Evolution of a Doctrine
724:, vol. 31, Social Problems, pp. 28–44
519:
473:
375:
321:
312:
266:
1120:. Archived from the original on August 3, 2012
953:, International Society for Individual Liberty
677:
675:
673:
1771:
1769:
1284:"Justices Say Jurors May Not Vote Conscience"
8:
1835:, vol. 66, Brook. L. Rev., p. 1207
1370:"Juror in '96 drug case cleared of contempt"
917:"In Jury Rooms, Form of Civil Protest Grows"
370:U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
1329:
1327:
1234:, vol. 21, U. Kan. L. Rev., p. 47
794:, Cato Policy Report, January–February 1999
791:Cato Books: Jurors Should Know Their Rights
682:Goodloe, Justice William (April 10, 2009).
132:lesser charges than the prosecutor sought.
663:Justice Often Served By Jury Nullification
497:In the fall of 2010 Julian P. Heicklen of
1585:"Jury Nullification Advocate Is Indicted"
1463:"Trial by jury – The Ultimate Protection"
1090:
199:in the resulting riots, the trial of the
1570:United States Libertarian Party platform
1445:"People v. Iannicelli; People v. Brandt"
1339:Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy
1052:, 22 J. Psychiatry & L., p. 165
1037:, 31 LOY. L.A. L. REV. 1, pp. 33–36
882:FIJA: Monkeywrenching the Justice System
712:
710:
647:Jury Nullification as a Defense Strategy
937:, vol. 53, Guild Prac., p. 49
830:
828:
628:
1583:Weiser, Benjamin (February 25, 2011).
1357:, vol. 31, Litigation, p. 46
1131:
1035:Jury Nullification: Law Versus Anarchy
988:Jeffrey B. Abramson (September 1994),
722:Jury Nullification in Political Trials
649:, 2 TEX. F. ON C.L. & C.R. 1, 1-2
7:
1622:Weiser, Benjamin (April 19, 2012).
203:for their parents' murder, and the
1641:Chicklas, Dana (1 December 2015).
14:
1856: (DC Cir. June 30, 1972).
215:in Michigan, Kevorkian's lawyer,
1872:United States criminal procedure
1413:Reichelt, Jason D. (2006–2007),
1368:Lane, George (August 11, 2000).
1354:In Defense of Jury Nullification
1070:University of Chicago Law Review
224:Vanderbilt University Law School
151:era, many protestors, including
102:Sparf and Hansen v United States
1778:"Rethinking Jury Nullification"
1483:Fully Informed Jury Association
950:A History of Jury Nullification
895:A Scheflin; J Van Dyke (1979),
856:"Know About Jury Nullification"
695:Fully Informed Jury Association
660:Radley Balko (August 1, 2005),
511:Federal Courthouse in Manhattan
482:United States Libertarian Party
1814:Oliver, Aaron T. (1996–1997),
1612:. Accessed February 28, 2011.
880:Black, Robert C. (1997–1998),
429:Advocacy groups and proponents
1:
1314:Karen Bowers (Jan 23, 1997),
884:, 66 UMKC L. Rev., p. 11
1710:Clor, Chris (28 July 2020).
1608:18 U.S.C. § 1504. Found at
1505:The Jury Education Committee
1292:. 2001-05-08. Archived from
1228:Dreyer, Leo P. (1972–1973),
749:10.5040/9781474206594.ch-006
436:, a U.S. Representative and
276:Games v. Stiles ex dem Dunn,
1776:Leipold, Andrew D. (1996),
1196:417 F 2d 1002, 1006
901:, Law & Contemp. Probs.
337:issued a ruling similar to
1893:
1848:United States v. Dougherty
1760:Thomas More for Our Season
1351:Butler, Paul (2004–2005),
933:Gormlie, G. Frank (1996),
603:representative legislature
330:United States v. Dougherty
1741:The Works of James Wilson
1138:: CS1 maint: unfit URL (
411:United States v. Kleinman
205:O. J. Simpson murder case
77:helping a fugitive escape
1048:Slovenko, Ralph (1994),
964:David E. Carney (1999),
543:Mecosta County, Michigan
462:prosecutorial discretion
207:. In the days preceding
1788:, 82 Va. L. Rev.: 253,
1743:, Volume II, edited by
1494:The Jury Rights Project
1063:King, Nancy J. (1998),
691:Essays & Editorials
645:Clay S. Conrad (1995),
341:that affirmed a jury's
242:, and firearms cases."
144:may also be involved).
73:1850 Fugitive Slave Law
1745:Robert Green McCloskey
1716:9 & 10 News Online
1649:. Fox 17 West Michigan
1335:Reynolds, Glenn Harlan
811:, UMKC, archived from
539:obstruction of justice
524:
478:
438:presidential candidate
419:Colorado Supreme Court
380:
325:
317:
284:Sparf v. United States
271:
118:Twenty-first Amendment
56:. In 1735, journalist
38:Double Jeopardy Clause
1251:836 F.2d 1013
1216:473 F.2d 1113
488:Criminal prosecutions
400:right to a fair trial
287:, written by Justice
253:Georgia v. Brailsford
109:civil rights movement
97:Georgia v. Brailsford
1854:473 f2d 1113
1516:Constitution Society
1271:116 F.3d 606
1118:Constitution Society
915:(February 8, 1999),
805:Doug Linder (2001),
289:John Marshall Harlan
122:Eighteenth Amendment
1782:Virginia Law Review
1470:Freedom Under Siege
1399:Rocky Mountain News
968:, Lexington Books,
837:Conrad on Jury Duty
499:Teaneck, New Jersey
352:self-representation
222:In a 1998 article,
161:Oakland, California
1877:Jury nullification
1628:The New York Times
1589:The New York Times
1555:An Oath for Jurors
1050:Jury Nullification
1016:B Quigley (2004),
808:Jury Nullification
776:Jury Nullification
735:Crosby, K (2019).
616:Jury Nullification
469:William C. Goodloe
281:The 1895 decision
232:mandatory sentence
124:which established
81:Syracuse, New York
69:American Civil War
25:jury nullification
1718:. 9 & 10 News
1461:Ron Paul (1988),
1210:U.S. v. Dougherty
1178:People v. Estrada
1003:978-0-465-03698-1
773:Julian Heicklen,
258:Seventh Amendment
250:In the 1794 case
201:Menéndez brothers
136:a recent rise in
94:In the 1794 case
58:John Peter Zenger
54:Church of England
1884:
1857:
1851:
1843:
1837:
1836:
1826:
1820:
1819:
1811:
1805:
1804:
1773:
1764:
1763:
1757:Robert H. Bork,
1754:
1748:
1734:
1728:
1727:
1725:
1723:
1707:
1701:
1700:
1698:
1697:
1686:
1680:
1679:
1677:
1676:
1665:
1659:
1658:
1656:
1654:
1638:
1632:
1631:
1619:
1613:
1606:
1600:
1599:
1597:
1595:
1580:
1574:
1573:
1565:
1559:
1558:
1550:
1544:
1543:
1542:
1541:
1532:, archived from
1524:
1518:
1513:
1507:
1502:
1496:
1491:
1485:
1480:
1474:
1473:
1472:, pp. 31–35
1467:
1458:
1452:
1451:
1449:
1441:
1435:
1434:
1427:
1421:
1420:
1410:
1404:
1403:
1393:
1387:
1386:
1384:
1382:
1365:
1359:
1358:
1348:
1342:
1341:
1331:
1322:
1321:
1311:
1305:
1304:
1302:
1301:
1280:
1274:
1268:
1260:
1254:
1253: (6th Cir.).
1248:
1242:
1236:
1235:
1225:
1219:
1213:
1205:
1199:
1193:
1187:
1181:
1174:
1168:
1150:
1144:
1143:
1137:
1129:
1127:
1125:
1110:
1104:
1103:
1094:
1060:
1054:
1053:
1045:
1039:
1038:
1030:
1024:
1023:
1013:
1007:
1006:
995:
985:
979:
978:
961:
955:
954:
945:
939:
938:
930:
924:
923:
909:
903:
902:
892:
886:
885:
877:
871:
870:
868:
866:
852:
846:
845:
840:, archived from
832:
823:
822:
821:
820:
802:
796:
795:
786:
780:
779:
770:
761:
760:
732:
726:
725:
718:Steven E. Barkan
714:
705:
704:
702:
701:
688:
679:
668:
667:
657:
651:
650:
642:
636:
633:
595:David L. Bazelon
515:magistrate judge
347:David L. Bazelon
236:assisted suicide
213:assisted suicide
175:Boston Tea Party
67:Just before the
1892:
1891:
1887:
1886:
1885:
1883:
1882:
1881:
1862:
1861:
1860:
1845:
1844:
1840:
1828:
1827:
1823:
1813:
1812:
1808:
1794:10.2307/1073635
1775:
1774:
1767:
1756:
1755:
1751:
1735:
1731:
1721:
1719:
1709:
1708:
1704:
1695:
1693:
1688:
1687:
1683:
1674:
1672:
1667:
1666:
1662:
1652:
1650:
1640:
1639:
1635:
1621:
1620:
1616:
1607:
1603:
1593:
1591:
1582:
1581:
1577:
1567:
1566:
1562:
1552:
1551:
1547:
1539:
1537:
1526:
1525:
1521:
1514:
1510:
1503:
1499:
1492:
1488:
1481:
1477:
1465:
1460:
1459:
1455:
1447:
1443:
1442:
1438:
1429:
1428:
1424:
1412:
1411:
1407:
1395:
1394:
1390:
1380:
1378:
1367:
1366:
1362:
1350:
1349:
1345:
1333:
1332:
1325:
1317:Beyond Contempt
1313:
1312:
1308:
1299:
1297:
1282:
1281:
1277:
1262:
1261:
1257:
1246:U.S. v. Krzyske
1244:
1243:
1239:
1227:
1226:
1222:
1218: (DC Cir.).
1207:
1206:
1202:
1189:
1188:
1184:
1175:
1171:
1151:
1147:
1130:
1123:
1121:
1112:
1111:
1107:
1083:10.2307/1600227
1062:
1061:
1057:
1047:
1046:
1042:
1032:
1031:
1027:
1015:
1014:
1010:
1004:
996:, Basic Books,
987:
986:
982:
976:
963:
962:
958:
947:
946:
942:
932:
931:
927:
921:Washington Post
911:
910:
906:
894:
893:
889:
879:
878:
874:
864:
862:
854:
853:
849:
834:
833:
826:
818:
816:
804:
803:
799:
788:
787:
783:
772:
771:
764:
734:
733:
729:
716:
715:
708:
699:
697:
686:
681:
680:
671:
659:
658:
654:
644:
643:
639:
634:
630:
626:
611:
554:
532:
495:
490:
431:
359:U.S. v. Krzyske
248:
240:drug possession
217:Geoffrey Fieger
187:, the trial of
171:Pentagon Papers
85:Christiana Riot
79:from a jail in
62:Navigation Acts
46:
34:Fifth Amendment
30:general verdict
17:
12:
11:
5:
1890:
1888:
1880:
1879:
1874:
1864:
1863:
1859:
1858:
1838:
1821:
1806:
1765:
1749:
1729:
1702:
1681:
1660:
1633:
1614:
1601:
1575:
1560:
1545:
1519:
1508:
1497:
1486:
1475:
1453:
1436:
1422:
1405:
1388:
1360:
1343:
1323:
1306:
1275:
1265:U.S. v. Thomas
1255:
1237:
1220:
1200:
1191:U.S. vs Moylan
1182:
1169:
1145:
1105:
1055:
1040:
1025:
1008:
1002:
980:
974:
956:
940:
925:
904:
887:
872:
847:
824:
797:
781:
762:
727:
706:
669:
652:
637:
627:
625:
622:
621:
620:
610:
607:
553:
550:
531:
528:
503:jury tampering
494:
491:
489:
486:
430:
427:
423:jury tampering
384:statutory rape
366:U.S. v. Thomas
307:U.S. v. Moylan
302:Fourth Circuit
247:
246:Court opinions
244:
209:Jack Kevorkian
197:Reginald Denny
189:Lorena Bobbitt
153:Benjamin Spock
120:repealing the
45:
42:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1889:
1878:
1875:
1873:
1870:
1869:
1867:
1855:
1850:
1849:
1842:
1839:
1834:
1833:
1825:
1822:
1817:
1810:
1807:
1803:
1799:
1795:
1791:
1787:
1783:
1779:
1772:
1770:
1766:
1762:
1761:
1753:
1750:
1746:
1742:
1738:
1733:
1730:
1717:
1713:
1706:
1703:
1691:
1685:
1682:
1670:
1664:
1661:
1648:
1647:Fox 17 Online
1644:
1637:
1634:
1629:
1625:
1618:
1615:
1611:
1605:
1602:
1590:
1586:
1579:
1576:
1572:
1571:
1564:
1561:
1557:
1556:
1549:
1546:
1536:on 2010-11-29
1535:
1531:
1530:
1523:
1520:
1517:
1512:
1509:
1506:
1501:
1498:
1495:
1490:
1487:
1484:
1479:
1476:
1471:
1464:
1457:
1454:
1446:
1440:
1437:
1433:. 2017-06-16.
1432:
1426:
1423:
1418:
1417:
1409:
1406:
1401:
1400:
1392:
1389:
1377:
1376:
1371:
1364:
1361:
1356:
1355:
1347:
1344:
1340:
1336:
1330:
1328:
1324:
1319:
1318:
1310:
1307:
1296:on 2006-12-02
1295:
1291:
1290:
1285:
1279:
1276:
1272:
1267:
1266:
1259:
1256:
1252:
1247:
1241:
1238:
1233:
1232:
1224:
1221:
1217:
1212:
1211:
1204:
1201:
1197:
1192:
1186:
1183:
1179:
1173:
1170:
1166:
1163:
1159:
1156:
1155:
1154:Sparf v. U.S.
1149:
1146:
1141:
1135:
1119:
1115:
1109:
1106:
1102:
1098:
1093:
1088:
1084:
1080:
1076:
1072:
1071:
1066:
1059:
1056:
1051:
1044:
1041:
1036:
1029:
1026:
1022:, Guild Prac.
1021:
1020:
1012:
1009:
1005:
999:
994:
993:
984:
981:
977:
975:0-7391-0032-7
971:
967:
960:
957:
952:
951:
944:
941:
936:
929:
926:
922:
918:
914:
913:Joan Biskupic
908:
905:
900:
899:
891:
888:
883:
876:
873:
861:
857:
851:
848:
844:on 2011-08-07
843:
839:
838:
831:
829:
825:
815:on 2011-01-23
814:
810:
809:
801:
798:
793:
792:
785:
782:
778:
777:
769:
767:
763:
758:
754:
750:
746:
742:
738:
731:
728:
723:
719:
713:
711:
707:
696:
692:
685:
678:
676:
674:
670:
665:
664:
656:
653:
648:
641:
638:
632:
629:
623:
619:
617:
613:
612:
608:
606:
604:
599:
596:
592:
587:
583:
581:
577:
573:
567:
565:
560:
558:
551:
549:
546:
544:
540:
537:
529:
527:
523:
518:
516:
512:
508:
504:
500:
492:
487:
485:
483:
477:
472:
470:
465:
463:
457:
453:
451:
447:
443:
439:
435:
428:
426:
424:
420:
417:In 2020, the
415:
412:
408:
407:Ninth Circuit
405:In 2017, the
403:
401:
396:
391:
388:
385:
379:
374:
371:
367:
362:
360:
355:
353:
348:
344:
340:
336:
332:
331:
324:
320:
316:
311:
309:
308:
303:
298:
296:
295:
290:
286:
285:
279:
277:
270:
265:
263:
259:
255:
254:
245:
243:
241:
237:
233:
229:
228:three strikes
225:
220:
218:
214:
211:'s trial for
210:
206:
202:
198:
194:
190:
186:
183:
178:
176:
172:
168:
167:The Camden 28
164:
162:
158:
154:
150:
145:
143:
139:
133:
129:
127:
123:
119:
115:
110:
105:
103:
99:
98:
92:
90:
89:Anthony Burns
86:
82:
78:
74:
70:
65:
63:
59:
55:
51:
43:
41:
39:
35:
31:
26:
22:
21:United States
16:Legal concept
1846:
1841:
1831:
1824:
1815:
1809:
1785:
1781:
1759:
1752:
1740:
1737:James Wilson
1732:
1720:. Retrieved
1715:
1705:
1694:. Retrieved
1692:. 2017-06-01
1684:
1673:. Retrieved
1671:. 2016-03-30
1663:
1651:. Retrieved
1646:
1636:
1627:
1617:
1604:
1594:February 25,
1592:. Retrieved
1588:
1578:
1569:
1563:
1554:
1548:
1538:, retrieved
1534:the original
1528:
1522:
1511:
1500:
1489:
1478:
1469:
1456:
1439:
1425:
1415:
1408:
1402:, Denver, CO
1397:
1391:
1381:December 24,
1379:. Retrieved
1373:
1363:
1353:
1346:
1338:
1316:
1309:
1298:. Retrieved
1294:the original
1287:
1278:
1263:
1258:
1245:
1240:
1230:
1223:
1208:
1203:
1198: (1969).
1190:
1185:
1177:
1172:
1152:
1148:
1124:December 24,
1122:. Retrieved
1117:
1108:
1074:
1068:
1058:
1049:
1043:
1034:
1028:
1018:
1011:
991:
983:
965:
959:
949:
943:
934:
928:
920:
907:
897:
890:
881:
875:
863:. Retrieved
859:
850:
842:the original
836:
817:, retrieved
813:the original
807:
800:
790:
784:
775:
740:
730:
721:
720:(Oct 1983),
698:. Retrieved
690:
662:
655:
646:
640:
631:
615:
600:
588:
584:
575:
571:
568:
561:
557:James Wilson
555:
547:
533:
525:
520:
496:
479:
474:
466:
458:
454:
432:
416:
410:
404:
393:Circa 1996,
392:
389:
381:
376:
365:
364:In 1997, in
363:
358:
357:In 1988, in
356:
342:
338:
328:
327:In 1972, in
326:
322:
318:
313:
305:
299:
292:
282:
280:
275:
272:
267:
251:
249:
221:
185:Marion Barry
179:
165:
146:
134:
130:
106:
101:
95:
93:
66:
47:
18:
1610:Findlaw.com
1375:Denver Post
1167: (1895)
564:Robert Bork
507:misdemeanor
395:Laura Kriho
193:Rodney King
149:Vietnam War
147:During the
138:hung juries
126:Prohibition
114:Prohibition
44:In practice
1866:Categories
1696:2017-06-02
1675:2016-09-01
1653:2 December
1540:2008-05-31
1320:, WestWord
1300:2006-12-17
860:fordlawokc
819:2008-05-31
700:2024-01-31
666:, Fox News
624:References
591:Deep South
572:Stettinius
304:decision,
142:CSI effect
1092:1803/6502
757:239239220
552:Opponents
294:voir dire
234:, and in
230:or other
1134:cite web
609:See also
434:Ron Paul
343:de facto
262:John Jay
1802:1073635
1722:29 July
1101:1600227
1077:: 433,
865:13 June
576:Fenwick
300:A 1969
50:Quakers
19:In the
1852:,
1800:
1269:,
1249:,
1214:,
1194:,
1099:
1000:
972:
755:
618:(book)
536:felony
368:, the
339:Moylan
333:, the
1798:JSTOR
1466:(PDF)
1448:(PDF)
1160:
1097:JSTOR
753:S2CID
687:(PDF)
580:pleas
182:mayor
1724:2020
1655:2015
1596:2011
1383:2020
1162:U.S.
1140:link
1126:2020
998:ISBN
970:ISBN
867:2016
574:and
505:, a
480:The
450:2012
448:and
446:2008
442:1988
1790:doi
1289:SMC
1158:156
1087:hdl
1079:doi
745:doi
440:in
409:in
36:'s
1868::
1796:,
1786:82
1784:,
1780:,
1768:^
1714:.
1645:.
1626:.
1587:.
1468:,
1372:.
1326:^
1286:.
1165:51
1136:}}
1132:{{
1116:.
1095:,
1085:,
1075:65
1073:,
1067:,
919:,
858:.
827:^
765:^
751:.
743:.
739:.
709:^
693:.
689:.
672:^
593:.
582:.
464:.
444:,
402:.
354:.
238:,
128:.
23:,
1792::
1726:.
1699:.
1678:.
1657:.
1630:.
1598:.
1450:.
1385:.
1303:.
1273:.
1142:)
1128:.
1089::
1081::
869:.
759:.
747::
703:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.