Reason.com

reason.org

reason.com

reason.tv

donate

previous link

REASON.TV VIDEO:Killing California's Costly
Death Penalty (7.11)

REASON.TV VIDEO:Public-Private Partnerships
in Puerto Rico (7.9)

REASON.TV VIDEO:How
Free Markets Will Beat Climate Change: Q&A with UCLA's… (7.5)

REASON.TV VIDEO:James
V. DeLong on Ending "Big SIS" (The Special Interest State… (7.3)

REASON.TV VIDEO:3 Big Takeaways From Obamacare
Decision (6.30)

REASON.TV VIDEO:Bikini
Banners and F*cking Cops Cracking Down on Curse Words… (6.29)

REASON.TV VIDEO:Is
There a Silver Lining to the Supreme Court's Obamacare… (6.28)

REASON.TV VIDEO:Gandhi,
Mandela, and...Mailmen? Postal Workers Wage Hunger… (6.27)

REASON.TV VIDEO:The
Politics of Poker: Why It's Time To Legalize Online Gaming (6.27)

REASON.TV VIDEO:Walter
Cronkite wasn't the Most Trusted Man in America? Q&A… (6.26)

next link

✕

Loading...

more sharing

StumbleUpon

Digg

Reddit

close video

Subscribe

Print

E-Reader

Reason E-Mail
Lists

Reason
Stuff

Shop
at Amazon

Subscriber
Services

Mobile

Reason on Google
Currents for Droid and iOS

Android
App

iPhone App

E-Reader

About

About

Contact

Media

Privacy

Reason Foundation

Submission
Guidelines

Staff

Staff

Contributors

Archives

Archives

Print Issues

Cover Gallery

Hit & Run Blog

Brickbats

Topics

Poll

Feeds

Podcasts

RSS

Events

Advertise

Donate

Print|Email

New
Hampshire Adopts Jury Nullification Law

J.D. Tuccille | June 29, 2012

Jury nullification, in which jurors refuse to convict
defendants under laws they find objectionable or inappropriately applied, is a
favored tactic of many libertarians who, rightly or wrongly perceive individual
liberty as, at best, a minority taste among their neighbors. They like the idea
of a tool that can be wielded on the spot to shield people from powerful control
freaks without first having to win a popularity contest. But nullification is
useful only if people know about. And last week, New Hampshire's governor signed
a law requiring the state's judges to permit defense attorneys to inform jurors
of their right to nullify the law.

On June 18, Governor John Lynch signed HB 146, which reads:

a Right of Accused. In all criminal proceedings the court shall permit the
defense to inform the jury of its right to judge the facts and the application
of the law in relation to the facts in controversy.

Short, simple and to the point. Nullification advocate Tim Lynch, of the Cato
Institute, thinks it's a step in the right direction, though not necessarily a
game-changer. Says he:

This is definitely a step forward for advocates of jury trial.
Allowing counsel to speak directly to the jury about this subject is something
that is not allowed in all the courthouses outside of New Hampshire–so, again,
this is good.  I am concerned, however,  that this language does not
go far enough.   We don’t know how much pressure trial judges will
exert on defense counsel.  As noted above, if the attorney’s argument is
“too strenuous,” the judge may reprimand the attorney in some way or deliver
his own strenuous instruction about how the jurors must ultimately accept the
law as described by the court, not the
defense.  I’m also afraid what the jurors hear will too often depend
on the particular judge and, then, what that judge wants to do in a
particular case.

So the law is an improvement over the old order, especially in an era when
courts and judges are overtly trying to suppress jury independence, but one
whose effectiveness is yet to be determined.

But is this faith in jury nullification misplaced? How likely are we and our
neighbors to symbolically flip our middle fingers to the powers that be and free
defendants charged with, say drug offenses or gun law violations? After all, the
power has long existed, but you don't often hear of juries staging revolts.

It does happen, though, as a much-covered 2010 Montana case demonstrates, when a trial
never even started because the court was unable to find enough jurors
willing to convict somebody for marijuana possession. And a lot of nullification
may fly under the radar, because it results in hung juries rather than full
acquittals, and because judges and prosecutors really want to keep it quiet.

Back in 1999, the Washington Post wrote:

In courthouses across the country, an unprecedented level of juror activism
is taking hold, ignited by a movement of people who are turning their back on
the evidence they hear at trial and instead using the jury box as a bold form
of civil protest. ...

The most concrete sign of the trend is the sharp jump in the percentage of
trials that end in hung juries. For decades, a 5 percent hung jury rate was
considered the norm, derived from a landmark study of the American jury by
Harry Kalven Jr. and Hans Zeisel published 30 years ago. In recent years,
however, that figure has doubled and quadrupled, depending on
location.

That article featured a pre-gunrunning Eric Holder objecting that, "There is
a real potential danger if this problem goes unchecked."

The article's hung jury estimate wasn't just guess work. A 2002 study (PDF) on hung juries by the National Center for State
Courts found that "In 63% of cases in which the jury deadlocked, the majority of
jurors voted in favor of conviction compared to 24% of cases in which the
majority of jurors voted in favor of acquittal ..." Such numbers are considered
a strong, if not conclusive sign of widespread nullification.  Two of that
study's authors, Paula Hannaford-Agor, of the National Center for State Courts,
and Valerie P. Hans, of Cornell Law School, penned a 2003 paper
(PDF)  published in the Chicago-Kent Law Review that said:

The criminal justice community has become increasingly concerned about the
policy implications of jury nullification, especially as jury nullification
manifests itself in hung juries. A number of communities, especially in
California, report that up to one-quarter of all criminal jury trials
routinely result in mistrials due to jury deadlock.

That paper also concluded that strictly defined nullification isn't always
distinguishable from doubts about the strength of a case, since the two tend to
run together when jurors are skeptical about the credibility and legitimacy of
police and the courts.

So jury nullification may be one of those things we're already soaking in
without realizing it, because people with doubts about the law stubbornly bring
acquittals or deadlock juries without painting their actions in political
colors. Now, in New Hampshire, maybe we'll get to see what happens when jurors
are told that what they're already doing is officially OK.

Reason needs your support. Please donate today!

Tweet

more sharing

StumbleUpon

Digg

Reddit

Try
Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are
not completely satisfied.

←
Reason Writers Around Town: Shikha Dalmia… | Main | If
the Mandate Is a Penalty… →

See
all 22 comments | Leave
a comment

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be
civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for
comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not
represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to
delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any
time.

Bitter Taxpayer|6.29.12 @ 2:48PM|#

Should be interesting to see how this plays out.

reply to this

log in or register to reply

|6.29.12 @ 2:49PM|#

It would be awesome if we could get something like that down here in Texas. I
doubt the Red Meat "we're just trying to protect you and your children" assholes
would squash it though.

reply to this

log in or register to reply

Anonymous Coward|6.29.12 @ 3:08PM|#

The criminal justice community has become increasingly concerned about
the policy implications of jury nullification, especially as jury nullification
manifests itself in hung juries. A number of communities, especially in
California, report that up to one-quarter of all criminal jury trials routinely
result in mistrials due to jury deadlock.

I do believe that this why the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" was
created. To make sure that the person imprisoned for a crime is the actual
culprit, not a piece of red meat offered up to appease the mob, a check in the
prosecutor's win column, or a closed case in the police department's
records.

reply to this

log in or register to reply

T|6.29.12 @ 3:12PM|#

It also seems to me the smart jury nullification advocate shuts up about
entirely about during slection and voir dire and then just hangs the jury.

I dunno, I never get called to be on the jury when I do jury duty.

reply to this

log in or register to reply

|6.29.12 @ 4:10PM|#

I've been in WA state for 17 years and a homeowner for the last 14, and I've
never been called. I hope if I do that its a chance to use JN.

reply to this

log in or register to reply

T|6.29.12 @ 4:20PM|#

I went through a period of years when I would get jury summons mailed to my
house about once a year. This was exceptionally odd, because I was getting
summons for Travis County and I lived in Harris County. So I'd call and explain
that I was ineligible, and they'd tell me not to show up. This went on until I
moved to Montgomery County, at which point they apparently managed to fix the
database.

reply to this

log in or register to reply

CE|6.29.12 @
3:28PM|#

This is like passing a law that says the police need a warrant to search your
home. It's already covered -- anyone on a jury in any state can refuse to
convict if they find the law unjust, with no penalty, no matter what the judge
says or doesn't say.

The NH law seems pretty weak anyway, talking about the "application of the
law" and not the justice of the law itself.

Not surprised that Holder is worried about juries trying to check government
power wielded by authoritarians.

reply to this

log in or register to reply

|6.29.12 @ 3:31PM|#

"In 63% of cases in which the jury deadlocked, the majority of jurors
voted in favor of conviction compared to 24% of cases in which the majority of
jurors voted in favor of acquittal ..." Such numbers are considered a strong, if
not conclusive sign of widespread nullification.

I would say such numbers are not a sign of nullification at all.

1. Presumably a trial doesn't make it to the jury unless the prosecutor
things the defendant is guilty and that he can convince most if not all selected
jurors of it.

2. Guilt is not a 50-50 prospect. Surely there are statistical aberrations
that will show up when selecting against a distribution around the 90% or 95% or
99% probability that "beyond a reasonable doubt" represents to the jurors.

reply to this

log in or register to reply

|6.29.12 @ 4:38PM|#

This would only be evidence ... and weak evidence at that ... of growing jury
nullification if, over time, the percentage of deadlocks due to jurors voting to
acquit had jumped from, say, 5% to 24%.

Strong evidence would be lots and lots of cases in which jurors explicitly
said after the deadlock occurred that they caused the deadlock because they felt
jury nullification was called for.

reply to this

log in or register to reply

Tulpa the White|6.29.12 @ 6:32PM|#

How much of a prick would you have to be to be the lone guilty vote on a hung
jury? Unless it was some heinous crime that you were absolutely sure the
defendant committed.

It seems much more conducive to human nature to be the lone not guilty vote.
With or without nullification.

reply to this

log in or register to reply

|6.29.12 @ 3:41PM|#

I appreciate this article. I was wondering recently about the ability of
defense attorneys to instruct the juries on their ability to judge not only the
defendant but also the merits of the law he is accused of breaking. As someone
who wants to go to law school (and maybe specifically into criminal defense) I
was wondering what's stopping that... apparently buddy-buddy prosecutors and
judges. We shall see how NH plays out.

reply to this

log in or register to reply

|6.29.12 @ 4:11PM|#

In many or most states, such defense statements would directly contradict the
Juror Oath. Here's California's:

"Do you, and each of you, understand and agree that you will well
and truly try the cause now pending before this court, and a true verdict
render according only to the evidence presented to you and to the instructions
of the court?"

reply to this

log in or register to reply

|6.29.12 @ 4:26PM|#

You could be in favor of jury nullification and still make that oath. For
example, if you believe that to "well and truly try the cause" means you must
throw out unjust verdicts because that contradicts the rest of the oath ...

Or if you feel that the instructions are unconstitutional, and thus you are
not beholden to them ...

Or whatever. All you have to do is to, at the moment you take the oath,
interpret the words of the oath in a way that allows jury nullification, and
then go ahead and nullify. You might need to invoke your Fifth Amendment rights
and not inform the other jurors of your reasons for nullifying, if you think the
more statist of them might go to the judge and try to get you tossed off the
jury.

reply to this

log in or register to reply

|6.29.12 @ 4:34PM|#

For example:

Some of the rest of the jury: "Clearly, the defendant was dealing weed. So,
because of the judges instructions, we have to convict, even though we think
weed is OK."

You: "I'm not convinced, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant
committed a crime. Not gonna convict. End of story. *"

* unstated thought in your head: "dealing weed is not a crime, despite any
laws passed by those dickheads in the legislature."

reply to this

log in or register to reply

ant1sthenes|6.29.12 @ 3:43PM|#

The subjectiveness of the strenuousness could possibly be addressed if the NH
defense attorney community came up with a sort of a standard nullification
disclaimer. If a judge attacked one attorney for using it, he'd be attacking
them all, and most judges would think twice about that. But then, I'm not a
lawyer.

reply to this

log in or register to reply

Voros McCracken|6.29.12 @
3:46PM|#

12 Angry Men: A tragic story where one juror bullies 11 others into letting a
guilty man go free...

reply to this

log in or register to reply

Easy Reader|6.29.12 @ 3:59PM|#

While we're on the subject ... allow me to commend to your attention The Just and the Unjust, a novel from the 1940s in which jury
nullification is a key issue.

reply to this

log in or register to reply

|6.29.12 @ 4:17PM|#

But is this faith in jury nullification misplaced? How likely are we and
our neighbors to symbolically flip our middle fingers to the powers that be and
free defendants charged with, say drug offenses or gun law violations?

My actual neighbors ... not gonna happen.

Me, if somehow I wind up on a jury because the prosecuting attorney used up
all preemptive strikes on prior potential jurors? 100%

reply to this

log in or register to reply

|6.29.12 @ 4:27PM|#

This is a great news. It'll be interesting to see what effect it has on the
conviction rate for nonviolent drug offenses.

reply to this

log in or register to reply

Dajake|6.30.12
@ 12:07PM|#

I got called for jury duty a couple of months ago and spent about 3 hours
reading all about the history of Jury Nullification on my iPad. Great stuff that
everyone shoul know. Great tool in the fight against tyranny.

reply to this

log in or register to reply

bopomtXQ|7.5.12
@ 1:19PM|#

Learn how to make money using Google. You can monetize your searching skills
and earn up to $375 per hour working for this billion dollar company. You can
choose your working hours. For more info visit surl.hu/financialfreedom

reply to this

log in or register to reply

SamFox|7.9.12 @
7:41PM|#

I'm with protofeed. Jury nullification is a citizen defense against unjust
laws.

Example, the guy who got busted for growing wheat in his back yard was
charged with violating interstate commerce when the wheat stayed on his
property. Also when Monsanto charges patent infringement when their pollen
drifts pollutes neighboring crops Monsanto sues an innocent farmer.

Then there is the non-violent cannabis user. Cannabis was prohibited based on
lies, misinformation, bullying an AMA doctor, fear propaganda, Reefer Madness
style. JN won't change the specific law said to be broken, but it will protect
the one on trial.

Using cannabis, even if 'illegal', is not a crime. You can 'break' some laws
with out committing a crime, as in the case of cannabis users. The basis for
cannabis prohibition is the real crime.

SamFox

reply to this

log in or register to reply

Leave a Comment

*
COMMENT:

You must have an account
and be logged in to comment.
Click here to register, or here to login if you already have an
account

Most Popular Stories

Viewed

Commented

Emailed

TSA
Agents at Louisville Airport Steal Deaf Man's Candy, Call Him "Fucking
Deafie" (7.10)

The
Dark Side of Anti-"Swiss Bank Account" Politics (7.10)

5
Other Fake Indians Besides Elizabeth Warren (7.9)

Man
Tells Police Dispatcher His Mentally Disturbed Brother Is Carrying a Fake Gun,
Police Kill Him Anyway (7.9)

Hey
Chris Matthews: Can You Stop Talking About Nonexistent "Cronkite Moments"
Already? (7.9)

A.M.
Links: Russia Sends Warships to Syria, Tax Liens Causing “Second Foreclosure
Crisis,” Web’s First Photo Turning 20 (7.11)

Voter
ID Regulations: Real Problem; Wrong Solution (7.9)

A.M.
Links: Chris Christie: You Can’t Lead by Being an Enigma, Police Shootings
From Alaska to Virginia, Google to Pay $22.5 Million FTC Fine (7.10)

Deadly
Hug Shooting Under Review, Obama Also Outsources, Doctors on Lance Armstrong’s
Team Banned: P.M. Links (7.10)

The
Dark Side of Anti-"Swiss Bank Account" Politics (7.10)

TSA
Agents at Louisville Airport Steal Deaf Man's Candy, Call Him "Fucking
Deafie" (7.10)

The
Dark Side of Anti-"Swiss Bank Account" Politics (7.10)

Man
Tells Police Dispatcher His Mentally Disturbed Brother Is Carrying a Fake Gun,
Police Kill Him Anyway (7.9)

Yes,
Actually, Obamacare Is the Biggest Tax Increase in History (7.9)

Taco USA
(5.14)

Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey

Health Care Law Still on
Trial in the Court of Public Opinion (6.28)

Right-to-Work
Wisconsin? (6.18)

Rasmussen: 65 Percent Say
No To NYC Large-Sugary Drink Ban (6.4)

Actually, Americans Do
Support Government Union Reform (6.4)

Are Americans Willing to
Take Away Public Union Rights? (6.1)

advertisements

Reason on
Facebook

Reason on Twitter

Reason on YouTube

Reason RSS

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

First Name
Last Name Email Manage your Reason e-mail list
subscriptions

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

(310) 367-6109

Editorial & Production Offices:

3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310)
391-2245

Home|About|Advertise|Privacy|Contact
Copyright 2012,
Reason.com