Jury Nullification is a Constitutional Right in the United States

Unfortunately, he is quite misinformed on American History. Lord Josh has rested his case almost entirely on the flimsy claim that there is no precedence in history to support Jury Nullification. Not only is this not true for the United States, it is not true for the England either, where we inherited much of our governmental structure and ideology. ----------- INTRODUCTION My opponent has two major claims in his first round rebuttal: 1. Jury Nullification has no precedence in U. S. History; and 2. There are other "remedies for judges who may direct a jury to false interpretation of law". I will address both of these issues below. I would like to note that Con did not address the constitutionality issue, and so that point (the basis for my argument) extends to the next round. ------------- 1. Jury Nullification has a precedent in U. S. history. Jury nullification has its basis in English law. However, since we are addressing constitutionality in the U. S. I will limit my examples to U. S. history. Jury nullification was common place in the early years of the U. S. It can be said that most of the founding generation personally supported nullification not only as a right for a jury, but as a Duty. This, as well, is irrelevent because we are discussing constitutionality. I will innumerate some of the more well known laws for which jury nullification was practiced: a) Alien and Sedition Acts. b) Fugitive Slave Laws. c) Alcohol Prohibition Laws. I contend that these are such well known examples of the regular practice of jury nullification that citations and specific examples are unnecessary, especially since we are arguing constitutionality, not historical precedent. Additional evidence that jury nullification was the accepted norm: A) Founding father and the first Chief Justice, John Jay, stated in the 1794 case U. S. Supreme Court Georgia v Brailsford: "you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. " (Full quotation can be found: . http://www.constitution.org...) B) Supreme Court Justice and signer of the Dec. of Independence: "The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts. " (Source: . http://www.stormy.org...) Both of the preceding lists show jury nullification has a precedence in practice and in principle. 2. There may be other remedies for the misconduct of judge. There may also be other remedies for the misconduct and unconstitutionality of the legislative and executive branches as well. All of that is irrelevent to the issue at hand, the constitutionality of jury nullification. But let us pretend for a moment that it is relevent. The constitution is full of MULITPLE balances of power for each branch. The legislature is checked by the executive veto and by judicial review. The executive is checked by legislative impeachment and judicial review. The judicial branch is checked by the legislature and executive in appointments. All three are checked by regular elections by the people. Those are just some of the checks included in the constitution. Jury nullification was another. Jury nullification was intended to be a check for all three branches. If a jury finds a law passed by Representatives of the People, like was commonplace during the Fugitive Slave Laws, then they are given the power to nullify that law by acquitting despite guilt. Therefore, the fact that there are other remedies for misconduct does not mean that we should disregard one check and balance. -------------- CONCLUSION Con has rested his case on a misinformed reading of history. I have shown that there is, indeed, a precedent in U. S. history for Jury Nullification. More importantly, Con did not address the resolution that Jury Nullification is a constitutional right. Therefore, all of my arguments extend.