Jury nullification

514:

who, with reformist zeal, wished to express disapproval of the same law. Moreover, a jury could decide that although the law pointed to a conviction, the jury would simply refuse to apply the law to an accused for whom it had sympathy. Alternatively, a jury who feels antipathy towards an accused might convict despite a law which points to acquittal. To give a harsh, but I think telling example, a jury fueled by the passions of racism could be told that they need not apply the law against murder to a white man who had killed a black man. Such a possibility need only be stated to reveal the potentially frightening implications of Mr. Manning's assertions.... It is no doubt true that juries have a de facto power to disregard the law as stated to the jury by the judge. We cannot enter the jury room. The jury is never called upon to explain the reasons which lie behind a verdict. It may even be true that in some limited circumstances the private decision of a jury to refuse to apply the law will constitute, in the words of a Law Reform Commission of Canada working paper, "the citizen's ultimate protection against oppressive laws and the oppressive enforcement of the law" (Law Reform Commission of Canada, Working Paper 27, The Jury in Criminal Trials (1980)). But recognizing this reality is a far cry from suggesting that counsel may encourage a jury to ignore a law they do not support or to tell a jury that it has a right to do so.

611:

jury's verdict, he told them that "you have been absolutely regardless of your oath. These men have pleaded guilty, and the evidence is of the clearest possible nature. You are none of you fit to serve on a Jury, but you will remain here until the end of the Sessions". The foreman, George Lathan, considered that a form of punishment for the jury, as the jurors were not going to be permitted to serve on any more juries but were nonetheless required to keep attending court or face contempt proceedings, which Lathan considered a tacit form of imprisonment. Officials in the Lord Chancellor's Office noted that while the judge's conduct "was ill-judged and arbitrary, he did not, so far as I can see, do any act which would justify the Lord Chancellor in removing him from the Bench". Home Office officials wrote to the judge, advising him that his actions "would be impossible for the Home Secretary to defend as constitutional or right", and after several days, the jurors were relieved of their duties. Home Office minutes suggest they did not think that kind of informal punishment of jurors who had returned the "wrong" verdict to be unheard of.

659:. The judge told the jury that there was 'no defence in law' for the protestors' actions, which according to the prosecutor had caused 'significant damage' to the building, but the activists were acquitted. In 2023, Insulate Britain members Giovanna Lewis and Amy Pritchard were jailed for seven weeks after defying the judge's ban on informing the jury of the reasons for their actions. In charging them with contempt, the judge referred to an earlier case where another environmental activist was sentenced to eight weeks in prison for the same reason. Following juries acquitting activists, dozens of people have been threatened with arrest for displaying signs that remind jurors of their right to make decisions based on conscience. In 2024, a motion brought by government lawyers to prosecute the activist Trudi Warner for holding a placard stating the right to jury nullification was thrown out by a High Court judge on the basis that there was a well-established principle in law of jury equity and Warner had not broken any law. Warner's placard had directly referenced the wording on the plaque on the outside of the Old Bailey. 330:

intruders', whom the jury might here ignore in reaching a verdict, was described by an enraged judge as 'damnable, blasphemous heresy'. This view was not shared by the jury, which, after three days' hearing, acquitted Lilburne—who had defended himself as skillfully as any lawyer could have done—to the great horror of the Judges and the chagrin of the majority of the Council of State. The Judges were so astonished at the verdict of the jury that they had to repeat their question before they would believe their ears, but the public which crowded the judgment hall, on the announcement of the verdict, broke out into cheers so loud and long as, according to the unanimous testimony of contemporary reporters, had never before been heard in the Guildhall. The cheering and waving of caps continued for over half an hour, while the Judges sat, turning white and red in turns, and spread thence to the masses in London and the suburbs. At night bonfires were lighted, and even during the following days the event was the occasion of joyful demonstrations.

404:. As the defendant had undoubtedly killed the Earl, the law, as it then stood, required the jury merely to look at the facts and to pass a verdict of "proven" or "not proven", depending on whether it believed that the facts proved the defendant had killed the Earl. If the jury brought in a "proven" verdict, that would lead to Carnegie's hanging though he had not intended any harm to the Earl. To avert that injustice, the jury decided to assert what it believed to be its "ancient right" to judge the whole case, not just the facts, and rendered the verdict of "not guilty". Over time, juries have tended to favour the "not guilty" verdict over "not proven" and so the interpretation has changed. The "not guilty" verdict has become the normal verdict when a jury is convinced of innocence, and the "not proven" verdict is used only if the jury is not certain of innocence or guilt. 648:, "indicated that the jury should convict him", and had ruled that "the public interest is what the government of the day says it is". The jury acquitted him instead, much to the consternation of the government. In 2001, two people were charged with conspiracy to cause criminal damage to a Trident submarine in a Barrow-in-Furness shipyard. Though the two admitted their intention to trash the submarine, the two said they were planning to do so due to nuclear bombs being immoral and illegal. The judge told the juries that such ideals were not a defence against the charge. The jury brought a verdict of not guilty on these two anti-nuclear protesters. 134:", whose role it is to determine the veracity of the evidence presented, the weight accorded to the evidence, to apply that evidence to the law as explained by the judge, and to reach a verdict; but not to question the law itself. Similarly, juries are routinely cautioned by courts and some attorneys not to allow sympathy for a party or other affected persons to compromise the fair and dispassionate evaluation of evidence. These instructions are criticized by advocates of jury nullification. Some commonly cited historical examples of jury nullification involve jurors refusing to convict persons accused of violating the 902:

New Hampshire Supreme Court effectively nullified the law and held that the wording of the statute does not allow defense attorneys to tell juries they can nullify a law. The Maryland State Constitution, Declaration of Rights, states that "in the trial of all criminal cases, the Jury shall be the Judges of Law, as well as of fact, except that the Court may pass upon the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction." Nevertheless, the Maryland Courts jury service brochure states that "it is your duty to accept what the judge is saying about the law, and how it is to be applied to the case."

553: 231: 871: 122: 321:'s regime. Lilburne had been charged with seditious libel for the publication of articles critical of the government; the jury were instructed to give a verdict only on whether the text was published, and to leave the issue of libel to the judge, while Lilburne argued the jury should give a general verdict and should judge whether the law's restraint on speech against the government was just. The theoretician and politician 914: 789:, the US Supreme Court held 5-4 that a trial judge has no responsibility to inform the jury of the right to nullify laws. That decision, often cited, has led to a common practice by US judges to penalize anyone who attempts to present a nullification 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 571:, discharged the writ, released them, called the power to punish a jury "absurd" and forbade judges from punishing jurors for returning a verdict the judge disagreed with. That series of events is considered a significant milestone in the history of jury nullification. The "courage and endurance" of the jury is celebrated in a plaque displayed in the Central Criminal Court (the 549:

him on the charge of disturbing the peace and acquitted Mead of all charges. The jury was then subsequently kept for three days without "meat, drink, fire and tobacco" to force it to bring in a guilty verdict. When it failed to do so, the judge ended the trial. As punishment, the judge ordered the jurors imprisoned until they paid a fine to the court.

522:, 2006 SCC 47, which confirmed that juries in Canada have the power to refuse to apply the law when their consciences require that they do so. The decision stated that "juries are not entitled as a matter of right to refuse to apply the law—but they do have the power to do so when their consciences permit of no other course". 850:

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 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." The

849:

ruled that jurors can be removed if there is evidence that they intend to nullify the law. The Supreme Court has not recently confronted the issue of jury nullification. In 2017, a jury was instructed: "You cannot substitute your sense of justice, whatever that means, for your duty to follow the law,

766:

In the 21st century, many discussions of jury nullification center on drug laws, which some consider unjust in principle or because they are seen to discriminate against certain groups. A jury nullification advocacy group estimates that 3–4% of all jury trials involve nullification, and a recent rise

733:

was a key supporter of the law as expressed in his famous "Seventh of March" speech. He wanted high-profile convictions, but the jury nullifications ruined his presidential aspirations and his last-ditch efforts to find a compromise between North and South. Webster led the prosecution when defendants

610:

civil servants suspected the difference between the pleas could be explained by the difference between the boys' admitting that they had caused the fire and their denial that they had done so maliciously. The trial judge did not consider that possibility or was not satisfied with it. On receiving the

600:

In opposition to this, what is contended for? – That the law shall be, in every particular cause, what any twelve men, who shall happen to be the jury, shall be inclined to think; liable to no review, and subject to no control, under all the prejudices of the popular cry of the day, and under all the

589:

So the jury who usurp the judicature of law, though they happen to be right, are themselves wrong, because they are right by chance only, and have not taken the constitutional way of deciding the question. It is the duty of the Judge, in all cases of general justice, to tell the jury how to do right,

513:

The contrary principle contended for by Mr. Manning, that a jury may be encouraged to ignore a law it does not like, could lead to gross inequities. One accused could be convicted by a jury who supported the existing law, while another person indicted for the same offence could be acquitted by a jury

901:

In 2002, South Dakota voters rejected by a 78% margin a state constitutional amendment to permit criminal defendants to argue for jury nullification. On June 18, 2012, New Hampshire passed a law explicitly allowing defense attorneys to inform juries about jury nullification. On October 24, 2014, the

548:

sermon and disturbing the peace but four jurors, led by Edward Bushell, refused to find them guilty. Instead of dismissing the jury, the judge sent them back for further deliberations. Despite the judge demanding a guilty verdict, the jury now unanimously found Penn guilty of preaching but acquitted

280:

No free man shall be captured, and or imprisoned, or disseised of his freehold, and or of his liberties, or of his free customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or in any way destroyed, nor will we proceed against him by force or proceed against him by arms, but by the lawful judgment of his peers, or by

184:

and integrity. The argument has been raised that prosecutors are not allowed to seek jury nullification, and therefore defendants should not be allowed to seek it either; however, for a prosecutor to nullify a law in this context would require negating the presumption of innocence. For this reason,

605:

A 2016 study exploring the history of juror punishment in England and Wales after Bushel's Case found no clear examples of jurors being punished solely for returning the "wrong" verdict. The closest that a jury came to that was in 1917, when a jury acquitted two teenage boys of arson. The boys had

407:

The standard jury trial practice in the United States during the Founding Era and for several decades afterward was to argue all issues of law in the presence of the jury so that it heard the same arguments as the bench in reaching its rulings on motions. That is evidenced by such decisions as the

418:

to exclude evidence on which it was felt the jury should not hear the argument because it would be informed of the evidence to be excluded. Later, that was expanded to include all legal argument and so that today, the earlier practice of arguing law before the jury has been largely forgotten, and

284:

For a trivial offence, a free man shall be fined only in proportion to the degree of his offence, and for a serious offence correspondingly, but not so heavily as to deprive him of his livelihood. In the same way, a merchant shall be spared his merchandise, and a husbandman the implements of his

172:

Some fear that nullification could be used to permit violence against socially unpopular factions. They point to the danger that a jury may choose to convict a defendant who has not broken the letter of the law. However, judges retain the rights both to decide sentences and to disregard juries'

329:

His contention that the constitution of the Court was contrary to the fundamental laws of the country was unheeded, and his claim that the jury was legally entitled to judge not only as to matters of fact but also as to the application of the law itself, as the Judges represented only 'Norman

712:

gave the jury two instructions. He first instructed the jury that a conviction was its only option under the law. He then instructed them that they could apply the unwritten law of the "fair fight" and acquit. Hickok was acquitted; the verdict was not popular with the public. There have been

414:, which held, "The defense can argue law to the jury before the court gives instructions." Later, judges began to demand the parties submit motions in writing, often before the jury was empaneled, to be argued and decided without the jury being present. The transition began with motions 108:

effect of invalidating the law. Such a pattern may indicate public opposition to an unwanted legislative enactment. It may also happen that a jury convicts a defendant even if no law was broken, although such a conviction may be overturned on appeal. Nullification can also occur in

305:. In addition, the writ of attaint allowed a judge to retry the case in front of a second jury when the judge believed the first jury returned a "false verdict". If the second jury returned a different verdict, that verdict was imposed, and the first jury was imprisoned or fined. 129:

In the past, it was feared that a single judge or panel of government officials might be unduly influenced to follow established legal practice, even when that practice had drifted from its origins. In most modern Western legal systems, judges often instruct juries to act only as

2396:"... 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." 677:, when colonial juries frequently exercised their nullification power, principally in maritime cases and cases implicating free speech. Jury nullification became so common that many British prosecutors gave up trying maritime cases since conviction seemed hopeless. Before the 593:

To be free is to live under a government by law.... Miserable is the condition of individuals, dangerous is the condition of the State, if there is no certain law, or, which is the same thing, no certain administration of law, to protect individuals, or to guard the State.

308:

That history is marked by a number of notable exceptions, several of which claim rights commonly recognized as fundamental in modern democratic societies, such as freedom of speech and of the press, and freedom of religious practice. In 1554, a jury acquitted Sir

601:

bias of interest in this town, where thousands, more or less, are concerned in the publication of newspapers, paragraphs, and pamphlets. Under such an administration of law, no man could tell, no counsel could advise, whether a paper was or was not punishable .

334:

In 1653, Lilburne was on trial again and asked the jury to acquit him if it found the death penalty "unconscionably severe" in proportion to the crime he had committed. The jury found Lilburne "not guilty of any crime worthy of death". In 1670, a

267:

power of nullification. By the 12th century, common law courts in England began using juries for more than administrative duties. Juries were composed primarily of "laymen" from the local community and provided a somewhat efficient means of

640:. The prosecution in the case demanded that the jury convict Ponting, as he had clearly contravened the Act by leaking official information about the sinking of the Belgrano during the Falklands War. His main defence was that it was in the 173:

guilty verdicts, acting as a check against malicious juries. Jury nullification may also occur in civil suits, in which the verdict is generally a finding of liability or lack of liability (rather than a finding of guilty or not guilty).

185:

prosecutorial nullification is typically defined as declining to prosecute. Nevertheless, there is little doubt as to the ability of a jury to nullify the law. Today, there are several issues raised by jury nullification, such as:

1235: 713:

contemporary instances of activists being arrested for informing jurists of their right of jury nullification in front of court houses, with subsequent rulings that arresting people for this activity is unconstitutional.

74:

has misapplied the law in the defendant's case, that the punishment for breaking the law is too harsh, or general frustrations with the criminal justice system. Some juries have also refused to convict due to their own

484:

discussed jury nullification and indicated that it is a duty of the presiding justice to try to prevent it from occurring. Perhaps the most famous cases of jury nullification in Canada were the various trials of

145:

Jury nullification is the source of much debate. Some maintain that it is an important safeguard of last resort against wrongful imprisonment and government tyranny. Some view it as a violation of the right to a

823: 162:

nullification of unjust law: "will well and truly try and a true deliverance make between the United States and the defendant at the bar, and a true verdict render according to the evidence, so help God".

2887: 738:

in 1851 from Boston officials who intended to return Minkins to his owner. The juries convicted none of the men. Webster tried to enforce a law that was extremely unpopular in the North, and his

113:; unlike in criminal trials, if the jury renders a not liable verdict that is clearly at odds with the evidence, the judge can issue a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or order a new trial. 1136:

Kennedy, Randall. "Racial Conduct by Jurors and Judges: The Problem of the Tainted Conviction", pp. 277–282, and "Black Power in the Jury Box?", pp. 295–310, Race, Crime and the Law (1997).

690: 812:

1002 (4th Cir.1969), the Court affirmed the concept of jury nullification, but upheld the power of a court to refuse to permit an instruction to the jury to this effect. In 1972, in

694: 102:

pertains only to the particular case before it; however, if a pattern of acquittals develops in response to repeated attempts to prosecute a particular offence, this can have the

2484: 2377: 846: 838: 401: 2527: 1996: 474:, it lacks the finality found in the United States. However, the Crown cannot appeal on grounds of an unreasonable acquittal although it can appeal on errors of law. In 2078: 1497: 1060: 158:. In the United States, some view the requirement that jurors take an oath to be unlawful in itself, while still others view the oath's reference to "deliverance" to 79:

in favor of the defendant. Such verdicts are possible because a jury has an absolute right to return any verdict it chooses. Nullification is not an official part of

1610:

Stettinius v. United States, Federal Case No. 13,387 (C.Ct. D.C. 1839), 22 Federal Cases 1322, 1333 quoting United States v. Fenwick, Federal Case No. 15,086 (1836).

285:

husbandry, if they fall upon the mercy of a royal court. None of these fines shall be imposed except by the assessment on oath of reputable men of the neighbourhood.

1464: 358: 2436: 2138: 2111: 313:

but was severely punished by the court. Almost a century later, in 1649, in the first known attempt to argue for jury nullification, a jury likewise acquitted

289:

Largely, the earliest juries returned verdicts in accordance with the wishes of the judge or the Crown. This was achieved either by "packing the jury" or by "

2053:"BREAKING: HIGH NOON AT CROWN COURT AS 24 PEOPLE INCLUDING LAWYERS, MEDICS AND QUAKERS DEFY JUDGE WHO JAILED DEFENDANTS FOR SPEAKING ABOUT THEIR MOTIVATIONS" 1939: 2591: 1220: 2608: 2239: 2187: 2644: 2617: 2932: 2846: 1970: 954: 668: 493:. Repeated attempts at prosecuting Morgentaler resulted in acquittals at jury trials in the 1970s and the 1980s. In the 1988 Supreme Court case, 154:

for instructing a jury against nullification, view a jury as a body charged with judging both law and fact. Some view it as a violation of the

1890: 851: 2029: 1777: 1376: 1356: 1324: 1043: 1655: 2927: 2488: 2206: 138:

by assisting runaway slaves or being fugitive slaves themselves, and refusal of American colonial juries to convict a defendant under

1089: 1728: 1348: 2550: 1709: 1547: 1103: 771:

is seen by some as being indirect evidence that juries have begun to consider the validity or the fairness of the laws themselves.

2322: 834:

power of a jury to nullify the law but upheld the denial of the defense's chance to instruct the jury about the power to nullify.

729:, it had been passed to mollify Southern slaveowners, who were otherwise threatening to secede from the Union. Secretary of State 499:, 1988 SCR 30, a nullification was appealed all the way to the country's highest court, which struck down the law in question. In 1691: 1675: 1427: 944: 686: 1444: 2955: 2535: 934: 799: 568: 348: 2685: 2288: 1745:

Simon Stern, "Between Local Knowledge and National Politics: Debating Rationales for Jury Nullification after Bushell's Case"

1316: 1261: 2415: 1835: 1503: 373:. Juries continued, even in non-criminal cases, to act in defiance of the Crown. In 1763 and 1765, juries awarded £4,000 to 2164: 1292: 1068: 222:

to expose the jury to information that would otherwise be inadmissible, hoping that evidence will trigger a nullification.

2937: 2213: 437: 272:

with the benefit of supplying legitimacy. The general power of juries to decide on verdicts was recognised in the English

252: 392:

In Scotland, jury nullification had the profound effect of introducing the three-verdict system including the option of "

150:, which undermines the law; whereas others, such as those members of Congress who voted to impeach Supreme Court Justice 577: 99: 1473: 2976: 2922: 2917: 2892: 1121: 410: 2430: 854:

upheld the first three sentences of the jury's instruction and overruled the remainder but deemed that instruction a

1620:

Berkowitz, Roger (2011). "Assassinating Justly: Reflections on Justice and Revenge in the Osama Bin Laden Killing".

814: 739: 674: 552: 443: 590:

though they have it in their power to do wrong, which is a matter entirely between God and their own consciences.

2907: 2856: 1460: 637: 31: 2264: 1795:"Before the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015: juror punishment in nineteenth- and twentieth-century England" 705: 2897: 2658: 1747: 2453: 1208: 1036:

The Place of the Explained Verdict in the English Criminal Justice System: Decision-making and Criminal Trials

2602: 2184: 2511: 795:

if they do not agree to accept as correct the rulings and instructions of the law as provided by the judge.

541: 481: 2052: 689:, juries often nullified alcohol control laws. That resistance may have contributed to the adoption of the 385:

against the Crown's messengers. In both cases, messengers had been sent by Lord Halifax to seize allegedly-

2372: 781: 490: 1874:

It was hailed as a victory for the jury system. The judge had indicated that the jury should convict him.

2381: 1388: 798:

In later rulings the courts continued to prohibit informing juries about jury nullification. In a 1969,

564: 506: 310: 241: 2714: 230: 70:

has broken the law. The jury's reasons may include the belief that the law itself is unjust, that the

2912: 2841: 2831: 786: 750:

White defendants accused of crimes against black people and other minorities were often acquitted by

652: 623: 459: 397: 655:

were tried for causing criminal damage to the British headquarters of the multinational oil company

2902: 939: 632:, leaked two government documents concerning the sinking of the cruiser to a Member of Parliament ( 1150: 2836: 2808: 2793: 2678: 2485:"NULLIFICATION AT WORK? A GLIMPSE FROM THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR STATE COURTS STUDY OF HUNG JURIES" 1814: 1637: 1585: 1146: 928: 726: 722: 682: 678: 447: 269: 135: 80: 2357: 1909: 979: 470:

Although extremely rare, jury nullification occurs in Canada. As the prosecution has powers to

2751: 2719: 2305: 2284: 2086: 2004: 1935: 1773: 1372: 1352: 1344: 1320: 1312: 1039: 1031: 949: 656: 495: 486: 366: 344: 256: 248: 192:

Whether a judge may remove jurors "for cause" when they refuse to apply the law as instructed.

1429:

Verdicts of Conscience: Nullification and Necessity as Jury Responses to Crimes of Conscience

2851: 2803: 2756: 2631: 2625: 2203: 1806: 1629: 751: 735: 701: 532: 458:. Although Tehlirian's lawyers did not contest that their client had killed Talat, the jury 353: 322: 236: 2826: 2612: 2454:"Juries Can Acquit the Guilty, 9th Circuit Says, but 'There Is No Right to Nullification'" 2440: 2419: 2268: 2210: 2191: 2030:"Breaking: Dozens more people risk prison for literally upholding the law – Just Stop Oil" 1839: 1751: 1732: 1713: 1679: 1656:"Prosecutor in Yanikian Case Says He 'Regrets' Not Bringing 'Indictment Against Genocide'" 1551: 1296: 1125: 1107: 709: 645: 641: 471: 370: 318: 297:

the jury so as to return the desired verdict. That was a common tactic in cases involving

290: 181: 91: 2240:"He Was Arrested for Promoting Jury Nullification. A Federal Court Says That Was Illegal" 1725: 155: 2333: 1957: 1706: 1544: 1100: 121: 2818: 2776: 2581:, an activist group that encourages educating potential jurors about jury nullification 1567: 1309:

From Social Justice to Criminal Justice: Poverty and the Administration of Criminal Law

855: 804: 754:, especially in the South, even in the face of irrefutable evidence. An example is the 730: 582: 420: 219: 131: 43: 2384: 1672: 870: 83:

but is the logical consequence of two rules governing the systems in which it exists:

2970: 2871: 2788: 2671: 2256:'This Flagitious Offense': Daniel Webster and the Shadrach Rescue Cases, 1851-1852", 1886: 1818: 1641: 1176: 959: 629: 615: 606:

confessed at their pre-trial hearing but entered pleas of not guilty at their trial.

476: 362: 347:. The judge held the jury in contempt of court, which was ruled inappropriate by the 314: 215: 1311:, Contributor William C. Heffernan, John Kleinig, (Oxford University Press US, 2000) 841:

upheld a jury instruction: "There is no such thing as valid jury nullification." In

2866: 2761: 2480: 2079:"Judge throws out case against UK climate activist who held sign on jurors' rights" 1944: 1914: 1004: 537: 501: 451: 340: 151: 1832: 1269: 2409: 585:, sitting as a judge in the case, disparaged the practice of jury nullification: 189:

Whether juries can or should be instructed or informed of their power to nullify.

2861: 2798: 1857: 1289: 913: 755: 633: 607: 563:

Four jurors refused to pay the fine, and after several months, Bushell sought a

378: 374: 273: 139: 110: 17: 2112:"Legal action cannot be taken against protester for contempt, High Court rules" 1572:

Cromwell and Communism: Socialism and Democracy in the Great English Revolution

2736: 2729: 2724: 2709: 919: 909: 651:

In 2021, six activists associated with the environmental protest organisation

619: 572: 557: 393: 336: 245: 218:

will attempt to get on a jury in order to nullify the law. Some lawyers use a

147: 71: 2650: 2139:"Judge dismisses case against activist who held up placard on jurors' rights" 2090: 2008: 1633: 2781: 2766: 2746: 2741: 2659:

Idiot Legal Arguments: A Casebook for Dealing with Extremist Legal Arguments

791: 768: 530:

By the late 17th century, the court's power to punish juries was removed in

205: 76: 67: 63: 1118: 2309: 721:

Juries across the North acquitted defendants who had clearly breached the

1843: 382: 302: 199: 104: 2663: 2165:"Jury Nullification as a Tool to Balance the Demands of Law and Justice" 1997:"Insulate Britain activist jailed for eight weeks for contempt of court" 1940:

Jury acquits Extinction Rebellion protesters despite 'no defence in law'

673:

In the United States, jury nullification first appeared just before the

1958:

Extinction Rebellion: Jury acquits protesters despite judge's direction

1810: 298: 294: 180:

issue involved in jury nullification is the tension between democratic

177: 2261: 1692:

Judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada. R. v. Morgentaler 1988-01-28

1590:

A Collection of the State Papers of John Thurloe, Volume 1, 1638–1653

545: 455: 195:

Whether a judge may punish a juror for practicing jury nullification.

2636: 1794: 1744: 742:

passed over him again when it chose a presidential nominee in 1852.

489:, who openly operated a private abortion clinic in violation of the 343:

of unlawful assembly for religious practice not associated with the

2641:, history of Bushell's Case and jury nullification in its aftermath 1449:, vol. 7, Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy, p. 51 824:

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

2528:"New Hampshire Supreme Court Nullifies Jury Nullification Statute" 1707:

Judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada. R. v. Krieger 2006-10-26

1673:

Judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada. R. v. Latimer 2001-01-18

1119:

Clive Ponting and "Troubled history of Official Secrets Act", 1985

551: 386: 229: 120: 59: 1236:"Verdicts of Conscience: Nullification and the Modern Jury Trial" 2694: 2304:. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press. p. 178. 1519:

Putting on a Jury Nullification Defense and Getting Away with It

1090:

Trial of the Quaker William Penn (founder of Pennsylvania), 1670

1061:"'Not only a right, but a duty': A history of perverse verdicts" 819: 809: 210:

to exclude evidence, should be made in the presence of the jury.

55: 2667: 1564:

Sozialismus und Demokratie in der grossen englischen Revolution

1393:

Deliberations: Law, news and thoughts on juries and jury trials

636:) and was subsequently charged with breaching section 2 of the 1861: 865: 423:

or overturn verdicts if legal arguments are made to the jury.

1891:"Clodagh Hartley, chequebooks ... and a Clive Ponting moment" 700:

In a well-known example of jury nullification, at the end of

681:, juries sometimes refused to convict for violations of the 454:, who was considered the main architect of the genocide, in 263:

The early history of juries supports the recognition of the

1772:. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. pp. 68–72. 1223:

from the original on May 14, 2021 – via ValpoScholar.

1207:

Conaway, Teresa L.; Mutz, Carol L.; Ross, Joann M. (2004).

87:

Jurors cannot be punished for passing an incorrect verdict.

2302:

Race in the jury box: affirmative action in jury selection

259:, was acquitted by a jury despite hostility of the judges. 2204:"Legal Culture, Wild Bill Hickok and the Gunslinger Myth" 1833:"Clive Ponting case: Where is the investigators' report?" 1209:"Jury Nullification: A Selective, Annotated Bibliography" 1151:"Jury Nullification: The Top Secret Constitutional Right" 2576: 2597:

Socialism and Democracy in the Great English Revolution

2323:"Doing Your Best as a Trial Juror: Surviving Voir Dire" 882: 644:

that the information be made available. The judge, Sir

1960:, BBC News, 23 April 2021. Retrieved on 16 August 2021 544:

had been arrested in 1670 for illegally preaching a

169:, 556 F.2d 71 (D.C. Cir. 1977). 90:

In many jurisdictions, a defendant who is acquitted

2948: 2880: 2817: 2702: 2400:, 141 Cal.App.4th 408 (July 14, 2006. No. C047785). 1971:"Insulate Britain activists jailed for seven weeks" 396:", which remains in Scotland to this day. In 1728, 2619:Jury Nullification: Why you should know what it is 581:(1784), 4 Dougl. 73, 99 E.R. 774, at p. 824, 276:of 1215, which put into words existing practices: 1702: 1700: 1005:"The Cheshire Cab Driver: Reasons of Conscience" 2281:Jury Nullification, The Evolution of a Doctrine 1335: 1333: 587: 511: 327: 278: 1533:Using Theories and Themes to Acquit the Guilty 357:. In 1681, a grand jury refused to indict the 293:". Juries were packed by hand-selecting or by 2679: 2300:Fukurai, Hiroshi, and Richard Krooth (2003). 1948:, 23 April 2021. Retrieved on 16 August 2021. 1432:, vol. 69, S. Cal. L. Rev., p. 2039 518:The Supreme Court in 2006 issued a decision, 317:for his part in inciting a rebellion against 8: 2260:Vol. 68, No. 4 (December 1995), pp. 609–625 2513:New Hampshire Adopts Jury Nullification Law 1472:, Boston College Law Review, archived from 1371:, (Cornell University Press, 2003), p. 21 203: 2686: 2672: 2664: 2578:FIJA – The Fully Informed Jury Association 1858:"Troubled history of Official Secrets Act" 1592:. London: Fletcher Gyles. pp. 435–445 1502:, American Bar Association, archived from 1178:Justice Often Served By Jury Nullification 1847:. 18 May 2011. Retrieved on 13 June 2013. 2283:, Carolina Academic Press, pp. 167–185. 2051:Press, Insulate Britain (May 15, 2023). 1194:Jury Nullification as a Defense Strategy 567:. Chief Justice Vaughan, sitting on the 2847:Racial discrimination in jury selection 2549:Tynan, Kirsten C. (September 6, 2021). 1412:Lars Noah, "Civil Jury Nullification", 1038:. Universal-Publishers. pp. 197–. 971: 955:Jury nullification in the United States 669:Jury nullification in the United States 575:) in London. In a criminal libel case, 98:A jury verdict that is contrary to the 27:Type of jury verdict in criminal trials 1343:(Yale University Press, 2006), p. 253 536:involving a juror on the case against 214:In some cases in the United States, a 1586:"Slate Papers, 1653: August (5 of 5)" 1499:The Stealth Juror: Reality or Rarity? 1369:A Culture of Fact: England, 1550–1720 1196:, 2 TEX. F. ON C.L. & C.R. 1, 1-2 693:, which repealed Prohibition and the 628:. Three years later a civil servant, 460:(Germany used jury trials until 1924) 7: 1908:Berlins, Marcel (January 22, 2001). 1307:William C. Heffernan, John Kleinig, 1910:"Perverting the course of justice?" 1600:– via British History Online. 1030:Bethel G. A. Erastus-Obilo (2008). 756:trial of Roy Bryant and J. W. Milam 2647:(Satirical defense of jury powers) 2534:. October 24, 2014. Archived from 2077:Laville, Sandra (April 22, 2024). 1995:Gayle, Damien (February 7, 2023). 462:returned a verdict of not guilty. 25: 2137:Castro, Bianca (April 22, 2024). 30:For the book by Clay Conrad, see 2510:Tuccille, J.D. (June 29, 2012), 1389:"Recognising the Activist Juror" 1260:Graves, Dr Frederick D. (2009), 1213:Valparaiso University Law Review 1175:Balko, Radley (August 1, 2005), 945:Judgment notwithstanding verdict 912: 869: 361:. In 1688, a jury acquitted the 2956:Fully Informed Jury Association 2555:Fully Informed Jury Association 2532:Fully Informed Jury Association 2330:Fully Informed Jury Association 1622:Law, Culture and the Humanities 1574:, Library of Congress 63-18392. 1426:Schopp, Robert F. (1995–1996), 935:Fully Informed Jury Association 800:Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals 785:, written by Associate Justice 1517:Hall Jr., John Wesley (2003), 1446:Comments on Jury Nullification 1443:Bissell, John W. (1997–1998), 472:appeal the resulting acquittal 1: 858:and affirmed the conviction. 438:Assassination of Talaat Pasha 92:cannot be tried a second time 2413:, 417 F 2d 1002, 1006 (1969) 2116:Bradford Telegraph and Argus 1234:Rubenstein, Arie M. (2006). 1059:David Hewitt (May 1, 2018). 1032:"13: The 'Perverse' Verdict" 622:sank the Argentine cruiser, 202:, except perhaps on motions 2645:How to Get Out of Jury Duty 2551:"What About New Hampshire?" 1726:Bushell's Case trial report 1716:. Retrieved April 06, 2014. 1694:. Retrieved April 06, 2014. 1682:. Retrieved April 06, 2014. 1584:Birch, Thomas, ed. (1742). 1550:September 10, 2014, at the 1466:Prosecutorial Nullification 826:issued a ruling similar to 325:wrote of Lilburne's trial: 2993: 2627:Essay on the Trial by Jury 2479:Hannaford-Agor, Paula L.; 2225:O'Connor, Richard (1959). 2209:February 13, 2007, at the 1768:Abramson, Jeffrey (1994). 815:United States v. Dougherty 725:in the 1850s. Part of the 706:manslaughter of Davis Tutt 675:American Revolutionary War 666: 444:Armenian genocide survivor 435: 255:, outside the established 29: 2857:Scientific jury selection 2655:, William Forsyth. (1875) 2611:January 23, 2011, at the 2190:January 23, 2011, at the 1124:January 15, 2016, at the 734:were accused of rescuing 638:Official Secrets Act 1911 66:even though they think a 32:Jury Nullification (book) 2652:History of Trial by Jury 2593:"Cromwell and Communism" 2586:Articles and other works 2279:Conrad, Clay S. (1998). 1634:10.1177/1743872111418172 1341:The American Jury System 1192:Conrad, Clay S. (1995), 400:accidentally killed the 1295:April 20, 2016, at the 1106:March 24, 2016, at the 843:United States v. Thomas 2881:Specific jurisdictions 2439:July 31, 2010, at the 2373:Sparf v. United States 1758:111 (2002): 1815–1848. 1750:June 24, 2016, at the 1678:July 20, 2011, at the 1339:Randolph N. Jonakait, 1101:Trial of Penn and Mead 980:"What is jury equity?" 782:Sparf v. United States 691:Twenty-first Amendment 603: 560: 516: 427:Specific jurisdictions 381:in separate suits for 332: 287: 260: 204: 166:United States v. Green 126: 2418:June 4, 2016, at the 2258:New England Quarterly 1889:(November 30, 2014). 1731:June 1, 2016, at the 1712:June 9, 2012, at the 1531:Conrad, Clay (1998), 569:Court of Common Pleas 565:writ of habeas corpus 555: 507:Chief Justice Dickson 349:Court of Common Pleas 311:Nicholas Throckmorton 281:the law of the land. 242:Nicholas Throckmorton 233: 124: 94:for the same offense. 2842:Peremptory challenge 2832:Death-qualified jury 2538:on October 30, 2017. 2491:on November 28, 2014 2267:May 9, 2016, at the 1838:May 4, 2016, at the 1506:on November 21, 2008 1272:on December 26, 2009 1071:on September 9, 2019 787:John Marshall Harlan 779:In the 1895 case of 695:Eighteenth Amendment 653:Extinction Rebellion 614:In 1982, during the 419:judges even declare 398:Carnegie of Finhaven 226:Common law precedent 156:oath sworn by jurors 42:, also known in the 2483:(August 26, 2003). 2359:The Washington Post 2339:on October 19, 2017 2216:Tarlton Law Library 2214:University of Texas 1864:. November 18, 1998 1662:. January 29, 2018. 1545:Magna Carta of 1215 1367:Barbara J. Shapiro 1243:Columbia Law Review 940:Josephine Terranova 359:Earl of Shaftesbury 339:refused to convict 125:A 19th-century jury 62:gives a verdict of 2977:Jury nullification 2837:Jury questionnaire 2809:Summary jury trial 2794:Jury sequestration 2772:Jury nullification 2715:Citizens' assembly 2604:Jury Nullification 1811:10.1111/lest.12098 1793:Crosby, K (2016). 1562:Eduard Bernstein, 1011:. October 18, 2016 929:Citizens Rule Book 881:. You can help by 830:that affirmed the 727:Compromise of 1850 723:Fugitive Slave Act 717:Fugitive Slave Act 683:Fugitive Slave Act 679:American Civil War 561: 480:, 2001 SCC 1, the 448:Soghomon Tehlirian 402:Earl of Strathmore 270:dispute resolution 261: 198:Whether all legal 136:Fugitive Slave Act 127: 81:criminal procedure 40:Jury nullification 2964: 2963: 2893:England and Wales 2752:Jury instructions 2697:-related articles 2516:, Reason Magazine 2398:People v. Estrada 2242:. August 5, 2022. 2163:McKnight, Aaron. 1936:Press Association 1831:Martin Rosenbaum 1779:978-0-674-00430-6 1461:Fairfax, Roger A. 1377:978-0-8014-8849-8 1357:978-0-300-12463-7 1325:978-0-19-512985-4 1262:"Fact definition" 1045:978-1-59942-689-1 950:Judicial override 899: 898: 704:'s trial for the 657:Royal Dutch Shell 526:England and Wales 496:R. v. Morgentaler 487:Henry Morgentaler 367:Church of England 345:Church of England 257:Church of England 249:English Dissenter 100:letter of the law 16:(Redirected from 2984: 2852:Strike for cause 2804:Juror misconduct 2757:Specific finding 2703:Primary articles 2688: 2681: 2674: 2665: 2632:Lysander Spooner 2559: 2558: 2546: 2540: 2539: 2524: 2518: 2517: 2507: 2501: 2500: 2498: 2496: 2487:. Archived from 2481:Hans, Valerie P. 2476: 2470: 2469: 2467: 2465: 2450: 2444: 2432:U.S. v Dougherty 2428: 2422: 2407: 2401: 2394: 2388: 2369: 2363: 2355: 2349: 2348: 2346: 2344: 2338: 2332:. Archived from 2327: 2321:Clay, Conrad J. 2318: 2312: 2298: 2292: 2277: 2271: 2255: 2250: 2244: 2243: 2236: 2230: 2227:Wild Bill Hickok 2223: 2217: 2201: 2195: 2182: 2176: 2175: 2173: 2171: 2160: 2154: 2153: 2151: 2149: 2134: 2128: 2127: 2125: 2123: 2118:. April 22, 2024 2108: 2102: 2101: 2099: 2097: 2074: 2068: 2067: 2065: 2063: 2057:Insulate Britain 2048: 2042: 2041: 2039: 2037: 2026: 2020: 2019: 2017: 2015: 1992: 1986: 1985: 1983: 1981: 1967: 1961: 1955: 1949: 1933: 1927: 1926: 1924: 1922: 1905: 1899: 1898: 1883: 1877: 1876: 1871: 1869: 1854: 1848: 1829: 1823: 1822: 1790: 1784: 1783: 1765: 1759: 1756:Yale Law Journal 1742: 1736: 1723: 1717: 1704: 1695: 1689: 1683: 1670: 1664: 1663: 1652: 1646: 1645: 1617: 1611: 1608: 1602: 1601: 1599: 1597: 1581: 1575: 1560: 1554: 1542: 1536: 1535: 1528: 1522: 1521: 1514: 1508: 1507: 1494: 1488: 1487: 1486: 1484: 1479:on March 9, 2021 1478: 1471: 1457: 1451: 1450: 1440: 1434: 1433: 1423: 1417: 1410: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1400: 1385: 1379: 1365: 1359: 1337: 1328: 1305: 1299: 1287: 1281: 1280: 1279: 1277: 1268:, archived from 1257: 1251: 1250: 1240: 1231: 1225: 1224: 1219:: 410, 428–429. 1204: 1198: 1197: 1189: 1183: 1182: 1172: 1166: 1165: 1155: 1143: 1137: 1134: 1128: 1116: 1110: 1098: 1092: 1087: 1081: 1080: 1078: 1076: 1067:. Archived from 1056: 1050: 1049: 1027: 1021: 1020: 1018: 1016: 1001: 995: 994: 992: 990: 976: 922: 917: 916: 894: 891: 873: 866: 775:Judicial opinion 752:all-white juries 736:Shadrach Minkins 702:Wild Bill Hickok 685:. Later, during 625:General Belgrano 323:Eduard Bernstein 291:writs of attaint 209: 168: 52:perverse verdict 21: 18:Sympathetic jury 2992: 2991: 2987: 2986: 2985: 2983: 2982: 2981: 2967: 2966: 2965: 2960: 2944: 2876: 2827:Change of venue 2813: 2698: 2692: 2613:Wayback Machine 2568: 2563: 2562: 2548: 2547: 2543: 2526: 2525: 2521: 2509: 2508: 2504: 2494: 2492: 2478: 2477: 2473: 2463: 2461: 2460:. June 20, 2017 2452: 2451: 2447: 2441:Wayback Machine 2429: 2425: 2420:Wayback Machine 2408: 2404: 2395: 2391: 2370: 2366: 2356: 2352: 2342: 2340: 2336: 2325: 2320: 2319: 2315: 2299: 2295: 2278: 2274: 2269:Wayback Machine 2253: 2252:Gary Collison, 2251: 2247: 2238: 2237: 2233: 2224: 2220: 2211:Wayback Machine 2202: 2198: 2192:Wayback Machine 2183: 2179: 2169: 2167: 2162: 2161: 2157: 2147: 2145: 2136: 2135: 2131: 2121: 2119: 2110: 2109: 2105: 2095: 2093: 2076: 2075: 2071: 2061: 2059: 2050: 2049: 2045: 2035: 2033: 2032:. July 17, 2023 2028: 2027: 2023: 2013: 2011: 1994: 1993: 1989: 1979: 1977: 1969: 1968: 1964: 1956: 1952: 1934: 1930: 1920: 1918: 1907: 1906: 1902: 1885: 1884: 1880: 1867: 1865: 1856: 1855: 1851: 1840:Wayback Machine 1830: 1826: 1792: 1791: 1787: 1780: 1767: 1766: 1762: 1752:Wayback Machine 1743: 1739: 1733:Wayback Machine 1724: 1720: 1714:Wayback Machine 1705: 1698: 1690: 1686: 1680:Wayback Machine 1671: 1667: 1654: 1653: 1649: 1619: 1618: 1614: 1609: 1605: 1595: 1593: 1583: 1582: 1578: 1570:(1963, NYC) as 1566:(1895); trans. 1561: 1557: 1552:Wayback Machine 1543: 1539: 1530: 1529: 1525: 1516: 1515: 1511: 1496: 1495: 1491: 1482: 1480: 1476: 1469: 1459: 1458: 1454: 1442: 1441: 1437: 1425: 1424: 1420: 1416:86 (2001): 1601 1414:Iowa Law Review 1411: 1407: 1398: 1396: 1395:, June 12, 2007 1387: 1386: 1382: 1366: 1362: 1338: 1331: 1306: 1302: 1297:Wayback Machine 1288: 1284: 1275: 1273: 1266:Jurisdictionary 1259: 1258: 1254: 1238: 1233: 1232: 1228: 1206: 1205: 1201: 1191: 1190: 1186: 1174: 1173: 1169: 1153: 1145: 1144: 1140: 1135: 1131: 1126:Wayback Machine 1117: 1113: 1108:Wayback Machine 1099: 1095: 1088: 1084: 1074: 1072: 1065:The Justice Gap 1058: 1057: 1053: 1046: 1029: 1028: 1024: 1014: 1012: 1003: 1002: 998: 988: 986: 978: 977: 973: 968: 918: 911: 908: 895: 889: 886: 879:needs expansion 864: 777: 764: 748: 746:After Civil War 719: 710:Sempronius Boyd 708:in 1865, Judge 671: 665: 646:Anthony McCowan 642:public interest 528: 468: 450:, assassinated 440: 434: 429: 371:seditious libel 319:Oliver Cromwell 228: 182:self-government 164: 132:finders of fact 119: 35: 28: 23: 22: 15: 12: 11: 5: 2990: 2988: 2980: 2979: 2969: 2968: 2962: 2961: 2959: 2958: 2952: 2950: 2946: 2945: 2943: 2942: 2941: 2940: 2935: 2930: 2928:Jury selection 2925: 2915: 2910: 2905: 2900: 2895: 2890: 2884: 2882: 2878: 2877: 2875: 2874: 2869: 2864: 2859: 2854: 2849: 2844: 2839: 2834: 2829: 2823: 2821: 2819:Jury selection 2815: 2814: 2812: 2811: 2806: 2801: 2796: 2791: 2786: 2785: 2784: 2777:Jury tampering 2774: 2769: 2764: 2759: 2754: 2749: 2744: 2739: 2734: 2733: 2732: 2722: 2720:Coroner's jury 2717: 2712: 2706: 2704: 2700: 2699: 2693: 2691: 2690: 2683: 2676: 2668: 2662: 2661: 2656: 2648: 2642: 2638:Bushell's Case 2634: 2623: 2615: 2606:by Doug Linder 2600: 2583: 2582: 2567: 2566:External links 2564: 2561: 2560: 2541: 2519: 2502: 2471: 2445: 2423: 2411:U.S. vs Moylan 2402: 2389: 2364: 2350: 2313: 2293: 2272: 2245: 2231: 2218: 2196: 2177: 2155: 2129: 2103: 2069: 2043: 2021: 1987: 1962: 1950: 1928: 1900: 1887:Preston, Peter 1878: 1849: 1824: 1785: 1778: 1760: 1737: 1718: 1696: 1684: 1665: 1647: 1628:(3): 346–351. 1612: 1603: 1576: 1568:H. J. Stenning 1555: 1537: 1523: 1509: 1489: 1452: 1435: 1418: 1405: 1380: 1360: 1329: 1300: 1282: 1252: 1226: 1199: 1184: 1167: 1138: 1129: 1111: 1093: 1082: 1051: 1044: 1022: 996: 970: 969: 967: 964: 963: 962: 957: 952: 947: 942: 937: 932: 924: 923: 907: 904: 897: 896: 876: 874: 863: 860: 856:harmless error 847:Second Circuit 805:U.S. v. Moylan 776: 773: 763: 760: 747: 744: 731:Daniel Webster 718: 715: 667:Main article: 664: 661: 583:Lord Mansfield 556:Plaque at the 527: 524: 467: 464: 433: 430: 428: 425: 234:Even prior to 227: 224: 220:shadow defense 212: 211: 196: 193: 190: 118: 115: 96: 95: 88: 60:criminal trial 54:, is when the 44:United Kingdom 26: 24: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2989: 2978: 2975: 2974: 2972: 2957: 2954: 2953: 2951: 2947: 2939: 2936: 2934: 2933:Nullification 2931: 2929: 2926: 2924: 2923:U.S. military 2921: 2920: 2919: 2918:United States 2916: 2914: 2911: 2909: 2906: 2904: 2901: 2899: 2896: 2894: 2891: 2889: 2886: 2885: 2883: 2879: 2873: 2872:Stealth juror 2870: 2868: 2865: 2863: 2860: 2858: 2855: 2853: 2850: 2848: 2845: 2843: 2840: 2838: 2835: 2833: 2830: 2828: 2825: 2824: 2822: 2820: 2816: 2810: 2807: 2805: 2802: 2800: 2797: 2795: 2792: 2790: 2789:Jury research 2787: 2783: 2780: 2779: 2778: 2775: 2773: 2770: 2768: 2765: 2763: 2760: 2758: 2755: 2753: 2750: 2748: 2745: 2743: 2740: 2738: 2735: 2731: 2728: 2727: 2726: 2723: 2721: 2718: 2716: 2713: 2711: 2708: 2707: 2705: 2701: 2696: 2689: 2684: 2682: 2677: 2675: 2670: 2669: 2666: 2660: 2657: 2654: 2653: 2649: 2646: 2643: 2640: 2639: 2635: 2633: 2629: 2628: 2624: 2622: 2620: 2616: 2614: 2610: 2607: 2605: 2601: 2599: 2598: 2594: 2590: 2589: 2588: 2587: 2580: 2579: 2575: 2574: 2573: 2572: 2571:Organizations 2565: 2556: 2552: 2545: 2542: 2537: 2533: 2529: 2523: 2520: 2515: 2514: 2506: 2503: 2490: 2486: 2482: 2475: 2472: 2459: 2455: 2449: 2446: 2443: 2442: 2438: 2434: 2433: 2427: 2424: 2421: 2417: 2414: 2412: 2406: 2403: 2399: 2393: 2390: 2386: 2383: 2379: 2375: 2374: 2368: 2365: 2361: 2360: 2354: 2351: 2335: 2331: 2324: 2317: 2314: 2311: 2307: 2303: 2297: 2294: 2290: 2286: 2282: 2276: 2273: 2270: 2266: 2263: 2259: 2249: 2246: 2241: 2235: 2232: 2228: 2222: 2219: 2215: 2212: 2208: 2205: 2200: 2197: 2193: 2189: 2186: 2181: 2178: 2166: 2159: 2156: 2144: 2140: 2133: 2130: 2117: 2113: 2107: 2104: 2092: 2088: 2084: 2080: 2073: 2070: 2058: 2054: 2047: 2044: 2031: 2025: 2022: 2010: 2006: 2002: 1998: 1991: 1988: 1976: 1975:openDemocracy 1972: 1966: 1963: 1959: 1954: 1951: 1947: 1946: 1941: 1937: 1932: 1929: 1917: 1916: 1911: 1904: 1901: 1896: 1892: 1888: 1882: 1879: 1875: 1863: 1859: 1853: 1850: 1846: 1845: 1841: 1837: 1834: 1828: 1825: 1820: 1816: 1812: 1808: 1804: 1800: 1799:Legal Studies 1796: 1789: 1786: 1781: 1775: 1771: 1764: 1761: 1757: 1753: 1749: 1746: 1741: 1738: 1734: 1730: 1727: 1722: 1719: 1715: 1711: 1708: 1703: 1701: 1697: 1693: 1688: 1685: 1681: 1677: 1674: 1669: 1666: 1661: 1657: 1651: 1648: 1643: 1639: 1635: 1631: 1627: 1623: 1616: 1613: 1607: 1604: 1591: 1587: 1580: 1577: 1573: 1569: 1565: 1559: 1556: 1553: 1549: 1546: 1541: 1538: 1534: 1527: 1524: 1520: 1513: 1510: 1505: 1501: 1500: 1493: 1490: 1475: 1468: 1467: 1462: 1456: 1453: 1448: 1447: 1439: 1436: 1431: 1430: 1422: 1419: 1415: 1409: 1406: 1394: 1390: 1384: 1381: 1378: 1374: 1370: 1364: 1361: 1358: 1354: 1350: 1349:0-300-12463-5 1346: 1342: 1336: 1334: 1330: 1326: 1322: 1318: 1314: 1310: 1304: 1301: 1298: 1294: 1291: 1290:Gaspee Affair 1286: 1283: 1271: 1267: 1263: 1256: 1253: 1248: 1244: 1237: 1230: 1227: 1222: 1218: 1214: 1210: 1203: 1200: 1195: 1188: 1185: 1180: 1179: 1171: 1168: 1163: 1159: 1152: 1148: 1142: 1139: 1133: 1130: 1127: 1123: 1120: 1115: 1112: 1109: 1105: 1102: 1097: 1094: 1091: 1086: 1083: 1070: 1066: 1062: 1055: 1052: 1047: 1041: 1037: 1033: 1026: 1023: 1010: 1006: 1000: 997: 985: 981: 975: 972: 965: 961: 960:Ultimate fact 958: 956: 953: 951: 948: 946: 943: 941: 938: 936: 933: 931: 930: 926: 925: 921: 915: 910: 905: 903: 893: 884: 880: 877:This section 875: 872: 868: 867: 861: 859: 857: 853: 852:Ninth Circuit 848: 844: 840: 839:Sixth Circuit 837:In 1988, the 835: 833: 829: 825: 821: 817: 816: 811: 807: 806: 801: 796: 794: 793: 788: 784: 783: 774: 772: 770: 761: 759: 757: 753: 745: 743: 741: 737: 732: 728: 724: 716: 714: 711: 707: 703: 698: 696: 692: 688: 684: 680: 676: 670: 663:United States 662: 660: 658: 654: 649: 647: 643: 639: 635: 631: 630:Clive Ponting 627: 626: 621: 617: 616:Falklands War 612: 609: 602: 598: 595: 591: 586: 584: 580: 579: 578:R. v. Shipley 574: 570: 566: 559: 554: 550: 547: 543: 539: 535: 534: 533:Bushel's Case 525: 523: 521: 520:R. v. Krieger 515: 510: 508: 504: 503: 498: 497: 492: 491:Criminal Code 488: 483: 482:Supreme Court 479: 478: 477:R. v. Latimer 473: 465: 463: 461: 457: 453: 449: 445: 442:In 1921, the 439: 431: 426: 424: 422: 417: 413: 412: 405: 403: 399: 395: 390: 388: 384: 380: 376: 372: 368: 364: 363:Seven Bishops 360: 356: 355: 354:Bushel's Case 350: 346: 342: 338: 331: 326: 324: 320: 316: 315:John Lilburne 312: 306: 304: 300: 296: 292: 286: 282: 277: 275: 271: 266: 258: 254: 253:Nonconformist 250: 247: 243: 239: 238: 237:Bushel's Case 232: 225: 223: 221: 217: 216:stealth juror 208: 207: 201: 197: 194: 191: 188: 187: 186: 183: 179: 174: 170: 167: 161: 157: 153: 149: 143: 141: 137: 133: 123: 116: 114: 112: 107: 106: 101: 93: 89: 86: 85: 84: 82: 78: 73: 69: 65: 61: 57: 53: 49: 45: 41: 37: 33: 19: 2867:Special jury 2771: 2762:Deliberation 2651: 2637: 2626: 2621:by Russ Emal 2618: 2603: 2596: 2592: 2585: 2584: 2577: 2570: 2569: 2554: 2544: 2536:the original 2531: 2522: 2512: 2505: 2493:. Retrieved 2489:the original 2474: 2462:. Retrieved 2457: 2448: 2435: 2431: 2426: 2410: 2405: 2397: 2392: 2387: (1895). 2371: 2367: 2358: 2353: 2341:. Retrieved 2334:the original 2329: 2316: 2301: 2296: 2280: 2275: 2257: 2248: 2234: 2226: 2221: 2199: 2180: 2170:December 10, 2168:. Retrieved 2158: 2146:. Retrieved 2142: 2132: 2120:. Retrieved 2115: 2106: 2094:. Retrieved 2083:The Guardian 2082: 2072: 2060:. Retrieved 2056: 2046: 2034:. Retrieved 2024: 2012:. Retrieved 2001:The Guardian 2000: 1990: 1978:. Retrieved 1974: 1965: 1953: 1945:The Guardian 1943: 1931: 1919:. Retrieved 1915:The Guardian 1913: 1903: 1895:The Observer 1894: 1881: 1873: 1866:. Retrieved 1852: 1842: 1827: 1802: 1798: 1788: 1770:We, The Jury 1769: 1763: 1755: 1740: 1721: 1687: 1668: 1659: 1650: 1625: 1621: 1615: 1606: 1594:. Retrieved 1589: 1579: 1571: 1563: 1558: 1540: 1532: 1526: 1518: 1512: 1504:the original 1498: 1492: 1481:, retrieved 1474:the original 1465: 1455: 1445: 1438: 1428: 1421: 1413: 1408: 1397:, retrieved 1392: 1383: 1368: 1363: 1340: 1308: 1303: 1285: 1274:, retrieved 1270:the original 1265: 1255: 1246: 1242: 1229: 1216: 1212: 1202: 1193: 1187: 1177: 1170: 1161: 1157: 1147:Duane, James 1141: 1132: 1114: 1096: 1085: 1075:September 8, 1073:. Retrieved 1069:the original 1064: 1054: 1035: 1025: 1013:. Retrieved 1008: 999: 987:. Retrieved 983: 974: 927: 900: 887: 883:adding to it 878: 845:(1997), the 842: 836: 831: 827: 813: 803: 797: 790: 780: 778: 765: 762:21st century 749: 720: 699: 672: 650: 624: 613: 604: 599: 596: 592: 588: 576: 562: 542:William Mead 538:William Penn 531: 529: 519: 517: 512: 502:obiter dicta 500: 494: 475: 469: 452:Talaat Pasha 441: 415: 409: 406: 391: 377:and £300 to 352: 341:William Penn 333: 328: 307: 288: 283: 279: 264: 262: 246:Episcopalian 235: 213: 175: 171: 165: 159: 152:Samuel Chase 144: 128: 111:civil trials 103: 97: 51: 47: 39: 38: 36: 2862:Struck jury 2799:Jury stress 2143:Law Gazette 1596:December 1, 769:hung juries 687:Prohibition 634:Tam Dalyell 608:Home Office 540:. Penn and 379:John Entick 375:John Wilkes 274:Magna Carta 140:English law 48:jury equity 2737:Petit jury 2730:Indictment 2725:Grand jury 2710:Jury trial 2495:January 9, 2458:Reason.com 2343:August 16, 2289:0890897026 1805:(2): 179. 1399:January 4, 1317:0195129857 1276:January 4, 1181:, Fox News 1164:(4): 6–60. 1158:Litigation 966:References 920:Law portal 862:State laws 822:1113, the 802:decision, 740:Whig Party 620:Royal Navy 573:Old Bailey 558:Old Bailey 436:See also: 411:Stettinius 408:1839 case 394:not proven 337:petit jury 148:jury trial 117:Background 77:prejudices 72:prosecutor 64:not guilty 2898:Hong Kong 2782:Embracery 2767:Hung jury 2747:Jury fees 2742:Jury duty 2310:872139501 2148:April 22, 2122:April 22, 2096:April 22, 2091:0261-3077 2062:August 2, 2036:August 2, 2014:August 2, 2009:0261-3077 1980:August 2, 1819:146794693 1642:143638660 1483:April 12, 1015:March 23, 1009:Volteface 989:March 23, 890:July 2013 792:voir dire 421:mistrials 416:in limine 387:libellous 206:in limine 200:arguments 176:The main 68:defendant 2971:Category 2908:Scotland 2609:Archived 2464:June 25, 2437:Archived 2416:Archived 2265:Archived 2262:in JSTOR 2207:Archived 2188:Archived 1921:June 30, 1844:BBC News 1836:Archived 1748:Archived 1729:Archived 1710:Archived 1676:Archived 1548:Archived 1463:(2011), 1327:, p. 219 1293:Archived 1221:Archived 1149:(1996). 1122:Archived 1104:Archived 906:See also 832:de facto 389:papers. 383:trespass 303:sedition 265:de facto 244:, a non- 105:de facto 1868:June 8, 1660:Asbarez 509:wrote: 432:Germany 365:of the 299:treason 295:bribing 178:ethical 160:require 50:, or a 2949:Groups 2913:Taiwan 2888:Canada 2376:, 2308: 2287: 2229:p. 85. 2089: 2007: 1817: 1776: 1640: 1375: 1355: 1347: 1323: 1315: 1249:: 960. 1042: 984:eNotes 828:Moylan 818:, 473 808:, 417 618:, the 546:Quaker 466:Canada 456:Berlin 240:, Sir 2938:Women 2903:Japan 2380: 2337:(PDF) 2326:(PDF) 1815:S2CID 1638:S2CID 1477:(PDF) 1470:(PDF) 1239:(PDF) 1154:(PDF) 251:, or 58:in a 2695:Jury 2595:aka 2497:2018 2466:2017 2382:U.S. 2345:2016 2306:OCLC 2285:ISBN 2185:UMKC 2172:2014 2150:2024 2124:2024 2098:2024 2087:ISSN 2064:2023 2038:2023 2016:2023 2005:ISSN 1982:2023 1923:2022 1870:2015 1774:ISBN 1598:2016 1485:2016 1401:2010 1373:ISBN 1353:ISBN 1345:ISBN 1321:ISBN 1313:ISBN 1278:2010 1077:2019 1040:ISBN 1017:2020 991:2020 820:F.2d 810:F.2d 597:... 56:jury 2630:by 2378:156 1862:BBC 1807:doi 1630:doi 1247:106 885:. 767:in 369:of 351:in 301:or 46:as 2973:: 2553:. 2530:. 2456:. 2385:51 2328:. 2141:. 2114:. 2085:. 2081:. 2055:. 2003:. 1999:. 1973:. 1942:, 1938:, 1912:. 1893:. 1872:. 1860:. 1813:. 1803:36 1801:. 1797:. 1754:, 1699:^ 1658:. 1636:. 1624:. 1588:. 1391:, 1351:, 1332:^ 1319:, 1264:, 1245:. 1241:. 1217:39 1215:. 1211:. 1162:22 1160:. 1156:. 1063:. 1034:. 1007:. 982:. 758:. 697:. 505:, 446:, 142:. 2687:e 2680:t 2673:v 2557:. 2499:. 2468:. 2362:. 2347:. 2291:. 2254:" 2194:. 2174:. 2152:. 2126:. 2100:. 2066:. 2040:. 2018:. 1984:. 1925:. 1897:. 1821:. 1809:: 1782:. 1735:. 1644:. 1632:: 1626:7 1079:. 1048:. 1019:. 993:. 892:) 888:( 130:" 34:. 20:)

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index