Talk:Jury nullification in the United States

First comments

I am removing the portion where John Adams is claimed to have been a supporter of jury nullification. This quotation is taken out of context. Earlier in the 12 February 1771 diary entry quoted here, he weighed in on the roles of judges and juries, and the proper usage of general and special verdicts. In the quotation in question, he was talking about their role as a check on judicial power, not as a check on the legislature (and unjust laws). This becomes clear when the quote is placed in context, which I will do below.

Just before the quotation in question he stated that "The general rules of law and common regulations of society... are well enough known to ordinary jurors. The great principles of the [British] constitution are intimately known." [emphasis added]

Including the entire following paragraph, in which the quotation is located, shows that he is talking about abuse of power by judges, not jury nullification:

"Now, should the melancholy case arise that the judges should give their opinions to the jury against one of these fundamental principles, is a juror obliged to give his verdict generally, according to this direction, or even to find the fact specially, and submit the law to the court? Every man, of any feeling or conscience, will answer no. It is not only his right, but his duty, in that case, to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court [emphasis added]."

A general verdict (giving a verdict generally) means that the jury is determining which laws apply to the case, as well as interpreting the facts. A special verdict (giving a verdict specially) means that the jury informs the judge how they rule on the facts of the case, but defer to the judge on how the law applies to those facts. Adams was saying that when jurors were confident in their understanding of the law, they should render a general verdict. When they were unsure, they should leave the question of law to the court. When the judge and jury reached opposing conclusions regarding law, it was the duty of the jury to render a verdict according to their own interpretation of the law. He says nothing about the jury having a right or duty to ignore the law itself.

As the context shows, the quote has nothing to do with nullifying the law. He was only talking about the jury's duty to check arbitrary power of the judge. (source: Adams, John. The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Vol. II. Edited by Charles F. Adams. Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1865. Pgs. 254-255) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.171.195 (talk) 19:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

---

I also removed the mention of the Zenger Trial as an example of jury nullification. Andrew Hamilton's argument for the defense was not that the jury should ignore libel law. It was that the jury should render a general verdict and interpret the libel law in the manner that Hamilton was arguing, rather than in the manner in which the prosecution was arguing. Below is a brief description of each interpretation:

Hamilton argued that "truth ought to govern the whole affair of libels.” For his client to be labeled a libeler, he insisted, “the words themselves must be libelous, that is, false, scandalous, and seditious or else we are not guilty." (Pg. 32)

The prosecution had argued that truth was not relevant to whether or not a publication was libelous. He further argued that the truth of a publication was an "aggravation of the crime" because truth was more likely to cause harm to the victim's reputation. (Pg. 17) Chief Justice Holt agreed with the prosecution and prohibited Hamilton from proving the truth of the publication.

After Holt sided with the prosecution, Hamilton turned his attention to the jury and urged them to use his interpretation of libel law. The court was applying the law incorrectly. He expected that since they were drawn from the vicinity, that they would know the publication to be true. (Pg. 26, 28)

“The jury,” Chief Justice Holt scolded “may find that Zenger printed and published those papers, and leave it to the Court to judge whether they are libelous.” Hamilton refused to relent. He challenged Holt’s claim, insisting that the jury had “the right beyond all dispute to determine both the law and the fact; and where they do not doubt of the law, they ought to do so.” [emphasis added] (Pg. 28 for the exchange) Holt was trying to force the jury to render a special verdict. Hamilton was defending the jury's right to render a general verdict. He was NOT telling them to ignore the law. Quite the contrary. He was telling them to follow the law in reaching their verdict. He was just telling them to interpret the law differently than how the judge was instructing. He was not saying that libel law was unjust, or that jurors should ignore libel law at all. He was saying that the judge was misapplying libel law. He wanted the jurors to interpret the law his way. Again, he was not telling them to ignore the law.

Holt eventually conceded and instructed the jury that they could determine “whether the words as set forth in the information make a libel.” The jury returned with an acquittal after only ten minutes of deliberation.

[source: John Peter Zenger et Al., A Brief Narrative of the Case and Trial of John Peter Zenger, Printer of the New York Weekly Journal, for a Libel, reprint, (New York: John Holt, 1770)] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.171.195 (talk) 20:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

---

I removed the claim that Chief Justice John Jay's jury instruction in Georgia v. Brailsford was a defense of the "right" of juries to nullify. The language "to determine the law as well as the fact" refers to the jury's right to render a general verdict. That means he was giving them the ability to apply the facts to the law, not ignore the law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.171.195 (talk) 21:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

You understanding of 3 US 1 is unteniable since in Georgia v. Brailsford the chief justice told the jury, "The facts comprehended in the case, are agreed; the only point that remains, is to settle what is the law of the land arising from those facts." If the jury was unable to decide what the law was in the nullification sense then what was the purpose in sending the question to the jury? Stephen W. Houghton II 38.108.247.2 (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Without getting into the specifics of the questions above, I would like to comment. This article obviously does need some work, but I think the following should be remembered when looking at legal materials -- especially court opinions.

A holding or ruling or decision in a court case does not consist of just anything that the court said. For a statement to be a ruling, the statement must involve a decision by the court -- and a decision can come about only if the parties disputed the issue which gave rise to the statement and the court, as a result, actually resolved the dispute.

All other words included in statements about what the law is that are found in a court opinion are called obiter dicta, or just "dicta". "Dicta" are words consisting of non-binding statements about what the law is. Dicta are not rulings by the court; they are not holdings or decisions of the court. They are not judicial precedent.

In subsequent cases, courts do often quote and cite dicta found in earlier court cases. And subsequent courts (and legal commentators) may well cite Georgia v. Brailsford for the proposition that jury nullification is part of our American legal system (which it is). I see no indication that the Court in Georgia v. Brailsford made a ruling, a holding, a decision, about jury nullification. The statements were simply part of the instruction to the jury on what the law is.

The fact that the dicta in a given court opinion consist of a correct statement of the law (and most dicta are indeed correct statements of the law) does not make the statements "not be dicta." They're still dicta, which means that they're non-binding, non-holdings, non-rulings, non-precedent, non-decisions in that particular court case. Lawyers and judges spend years studying court cases, and they learn how to cite and use dicta in legal proceedings. We as Wikipedia editors need to be careful in this area. Famspear (talk) 18:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

But what is it?

The article starts with "jury nullification" set off in bold (and not the entire title of the article, for some reason), but then goes on to not explain it. The lede mentions its origins and hints (as I understand it) at the reason for this thing called jury nullification, but nothing before the TOC explains what it is.

The "History" section offers some kind of background, but doesn't explain it. There's a phrase in italics there which at first reading didn't enlighten me any. Having read the entire "Nullification in practice" section I still didn't know what it is. Only once I got to the blockquotes about halfway into the "Court rulings" section did I decide it's (apparently) about the jury effectively nullifying the laws the defendant is being tried for breaking, at least for that particular defendant, in that one instance. Is that it?

It should be defined at the top. I thought (for some reason) it was when somebody decides a jury isn't needed for a trial (they go with just a judge), or maybe it's when the jury renders a verdict, but the judge overrides that verdict. Obviously, I'm no lawyer. But then, actual lawyers won't need to read the article. Could somebody with a clue add a definition? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 09:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Better! Thanks, Swampyank. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 08:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

---

I removed the entire "history" section from the article. It included a passage about John Jay in Georgia v. Brailsford and a passage about Mansfieldism. Both of these concern the Jury's ability to render a general verdict. They are not related to jury nullification. They seem to have been included due to a misunderstanding of jury nullification. Their inclusion in the article confuses the issue for readers.98.239.143.1 (talk) 01:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit residue?

The third paragraph in the "Court Rulings" section is this:

"In both cases, in the DC Circuit, the same judge, William Cranch, rendered the opinions, creating precedents that have never been overturned.[20][21]"

"In both cases" doesn't appear to reference anything previously said and "the same judge" William Cranch is not mentioned anywhere else other then the note in his picture in the same section. I assume this is a residue of a pervious edit and figured those whom edit/maintain this article could reconstruct this line to make sense in light of those edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.255.1.139 (talk) 16:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Historical Inaccuracy

The most recent historical scholarship on the issue refutes the claim that Zenger's trial was an example of jury nullification. It also refutes the notion that the founding fathers, notably John Adams, supported the concept. See: Pepper, David A. 2000. "Nullifying History: Modern-Day Misuse of the Right to Decide the Law." Case Western Reserve Law Review Vol. 5, Iss. 3, 599-644.

I have already written in the discussion section here why both of those two claims are inaccurate. Refute those arguments or stop reverting.98.239.143.1 (talk) 02:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I see a lot of personal commentary and a bit of personal interpretation of primary sources by your IP and another IP address above, but no reliable secondary sources until this latest post (though I may have missed something), so that doesn't leave a lot requiring refutation. As it stands now, there is one reliable source – an article in a highly regarded law journal (behind a paywall) – which, I'll stipulate, says the cases do not represent jury nullification, and one reliable source – a notable attorney commenting on the application of a legal principle to certain well-known historical cases for a venerable national magazine – which says the cases do represent jury nullification. Under those circumstances (i.e., absent a preponderance of additional sources on either side), Wikipedia guidelines would seem to favor presenting both sides rather than neither. Actually, even if the not-nullification side has far greater support in sources, including the is-nullification position briefly, with a sourced explanation as to why it's wrong, might be the best approach to explain the issue rather than deleting and ignoring the topic. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Including the "historical controversy" would needlessly complicate the issue. Dozens of attorneys, judges, journalists, and historians have voiced opinions on the history of jury nullification. Including that would unnecessarily extend and complicate this wikipedia article. If we put the two sources head-to-head there is no comparison. Pepper cites extensive primary and secondary sources. Horton cites none. Horton is merely echoing a single secondary source on the matter, FIJA spokesman Clay Conrad, whose historical narrative has already been thoroughly debunked.98.239.143.1 (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

History/"In practice"

I have changed the wording in the "in practice" section, which previously suggested that "jury nullification began in the United States in 1670." I thought this was worth mentioning here as a reminder to anyone adding further material on jury nullification in the colonial period. Be sure that your wording makes it clear that while jury nullification in the US may have it's roots in the colonial period, it could not have occurred any time before 1776, since there was no United States of America at that time. Besides, according to the sources cited, the 1670 case occurred in England.Pwoodfor (talk) 12:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Mark Ianecelli and Eric Brandt section

This section has no citations and was added by one of the parties involved (see WP:COI for more details on the best practices here, Eric). It is written in an non-encyclopedic style and is a huge fraction of the article, given its relative absence from the media, in my cursory glance. I'm thinking it has been given undue weight. Here are some reliable sources I found on it:

• "Men accused of felony jury tampering plead not guilty in Denver", Jordan Steffen, 2015 September 10, The Denver Post
• "Denver judge dismisses charges against jury nullification activists", Noelle Phillips, 2015 December 16, The Denver Post

I'm going to remove the section entirely, but I think maybe a 1-paragraph entry might be reasonble (though even then, this is not a list article, so there are real notability concerns.) 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 17:05, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

If the section is informative and relevant, why not merely rewrite the section rather than deleting it (as a violation of some sort)? MaynardClark (talk) 17:23, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, it just seemed like a complete teardown to me. It's not even entirely clear that it's notable at all (given that the only reliable sources I could find covering it are local sources), and it read like a political essay or a personal history. I made an entry here so that someone who thought otherwise could take a crack at it, you're welcome to give it a try. Not to mention, given that it was a story involving multiple living people, WP:BLP probably also applies. 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 00:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jury nullification in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061202230002/http://homepage.smc.edu/sindell_steven/AJ3%20Folder/Currentevents/aj3.jury.nullific.html to http://homepage.smc.edu/sindell_steven/AJ3%20Folder/Currentevents/aj3.jury.nullific.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jury nullification in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110807055752/http://fija.org/conrad_on_jury_duty.htm to http://www.fija.org/conrad_on_jury_duty.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Hung Jury "Average"

In the "In Practice" section, the following claim is made:

"a recent rise in hung juries (from an average of 5% to nearly 20% in recent years)"

which does not follow at all from the source given for that sentence, which merely states that the 20% is from self reports of "some local courts in California", which has nothing to do with an average in California, let alone the USA. Citation needed? 73.131.249.64 (talk) 01:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I know this is a seriously tardy reply, but I have tweaked the wording to change "in recent years" to "in some locales" to better reflect the source. Schazjmd (talk) 20:04, 6 April 2023 (UTC)