.
lly,
tThat's called "jury nullification", and it worked in the U. K. in
1982:...and that involved a clear breach of the Official Secrets Act. Is the relevant firearms law more important?
Mark L. Fergerson
not=20
the=20
I suggest you read the news write-ups again.
One important thing to bear in mind: the Jury has the *power* to disregard the law; it doesn't have the *right* to do so. Jury nullification is a side-effect of the jury being the sole arbiter of its verdict. Any obligation to apply the the law is purely theoretical, as there is no mechanism by which (non-)compliance with such obligations can be tested or sanctioned.
There was nothing which could have prevented the jury from acquiting in this case, had they chose to do so. Nor was there anything stopping individual jurors from arguing for acquital, resulting in lengthy deliberations ending in either a hung jury or at least a majority verdict.
However, the article says: "The jury took 20 minutes to make its conviction ...", which suggests that this wasn't such a case.
Absolutely correct. Note that the jury is *never* given instructions regarding nullification, rather to the contrary. As you said, it's a side-effect. The perfect juror would only regard evidence presented in the courtroom, minus any grandstanding by either lawyer. Well, that's what the law thinks the perfect juror is, anyway.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.