OH YEAH THEYRE TALKING ABOUT IT NOW
Please do not remove mods, really sorry for the Google AMP link, but this is a “subscribers only” blocked article on CNN that for some reason AMP just straight up bypasses and opens fine.
Direct link: https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/10/us/jury-nullification-luigi-mangione-defense/index.html.
Edit 1: updated title, CNN changed it on me
Jury nullification doesn’t really exist. It’s just an attempt to label something the jury decides that you believe goes against the law. The fact is, the jury is part of the law, and the jury can decide what parts of it are relevant, are enforceable in the case, and which need special considerations. Complaining about “jury nullification” is complaining about one of the fewest democratic elements in the judicial system, a system that on its own is almost completely autocratic and as such that much more susceptible to the formation of oligarchies and nepotism from within.
Is it true there only needs to be one holdout in the 12 to grind it to a halt?
It depends on the charge. Some only need a majority, some need a unanimous vote.
They can order a new trial with a hung jury.
Yes
It’s actually the conclusion of 2 things:
If both hold true, then logically, a jury can make a decision against legal precedent, without fear of repercussion - unless they are paid/coerced to come to that conclusion, and the defendant - once cleared by by a jury - cannot be tried again.
This means that legally, a jury can say GTFO to jury instructions set by judges.
Only when it comes to acquittals though, which aren’t appealable. Those decisions can and will be reversed in civil cases or if people convict inappropriately. You mentioned as much by noting double Jeopardy but I still think it’s an important distinction that makes it irregular.
The salient question is not whether it exists, but whether it’s a feature or a bug.
If jurors are intended to resolve questions of law, then judges really have no purpose. Just let jurors decide based on how much they like the defendant.
You may as well just do trial by combat instead - equally as just but far more entertaining.
By that logic, why bother with democracy and not trial by combat?
The problem with your logic is that you assume jurors don’t have a sense of ethics and justice. If they truly don’t, then forget the judiciary as a problem, because the society itself isn’t going to hold up. So in that way, applying your logic here and under that assumption you are right, why bother with democracy and not trial by combat when people no longer care about acting in good will?
Sentenced to one night of rehabilitation?
I’m not assuming that at all. Jurors have a very specific role, which is to determine whether the evidence against a defendant is sufficient to find them guilty of the charges against them. That does not require a sense of ethics and justice.
“Juries are required to perform determinations based on a system of ethically based laws and justice. That does not require a sense of ethics and justice.”
Try again.
That’s not what I said at all.
I can’t be any clearer. Jurors consider whether evidence confirms the defendant performed the acts they are charged with.
They do not “perform determinations” in any way. They do not consider ethics. They do not dispense justice.
I can’t be clearer either. The jury needs to have a sense of what they are participating in it, and “consider whether evidence confirms the defendant performed the acts they are charged with” is just another way of saying they have to determine something but disingenuously acting like it’s completely different. Grammar Nazis, people who will argue to oblivion about something, MAGAists, they all have one thing in common, they focus and overextend very limited but convenient interpretations in order to build walls around a context that suits them.
Technically, you’re correct. In this particular case though, I don’t think it’s the best kind of correct.
Juries are the triers of fact when present. In a civil case, that means the judge can ask all kinds of nuanced questions in the jury instructions, as that could be necessary for the judge’s application of the law later down the line.
In the US criminal justice system, the laws are meant to be interpretable by the common person (a lot of work being done by “meant-to-be”). A judge only asks them a single question: For the charge X, how do you find? Since juries do not need to justify their decision, they can use whatever reasoning they want to behind closed doors to reach their decision: facts, ethics, or flipping a coin. The lawyers use voir-dire to try to exclude jurors that would be too biased, or would be willing to use a coin flip (juries almost universally take their job seriously—they hold the freedom of someone in their hands.)
As mentioned elsewhere, an acquittal by a jury in the US is non-reviewable. It doesn’t matter why they acquit. Convictions, OTOH, are reviewable, and judges have famously thrown out guilty verdicts from juries before.
It’s not a question of can, but ought.
Ought a jury just make up the law based on the vibe of the case?
How would you feel if it were Trump on trial for whatever crime and the Jury just decided that although the evidence says he’s guilty as sin it just didn’t feel right to convict such an important person.
If it’s a bug, wow. Almost 250 years, and they can’t fix it?
Also, judges are there to make sure both sides play by the rules.
It is fixed, albeit imperfectly.
Jurors are instructed to determine whether a defendant is guilty of the charges against them.
To return a verdict of “not guilty” despite knowing that the defendant is guilty, merely because jurors know they can not be prosecuted is still corruption.
Judges = letter of the law
Jurors = spirit of the law
Jurors have no idea what “the law” actually is.
When you say “spirit of the law” really what you mean is “the vibe”.
Aren’t jury trials statistically more likely to result in a false coviction than other trials? Given how much presentation, charisma, gender and race can influence a verdict its already about how much the jury like the defendant.
Not really. I mean sure some jurors may not like a defendant because of their race, but the court process seeks to mitigate these issues. For example there are 12 jurors and a unanimous verdict is required. The hope being that the majority of jurors will be able to convince a few racist ones to set aside their prejudism.
This isn’t really a reason to just throw out the whole process and make trials popularity contests.
Surely the judge still has a role, and that is to determine the punishment if found guilty.
… but in this case everyone is advocating jury nullification so as to avoid punishment, so you don’t really need a judge to determine punishment.
The judge’s other main role in a trial with jury is to actually run the proceedings of the trial. Order of operations, keeping the two counsels in line, scheduling, etc.