Jury Nullification is a Constitutional Right in the United States

Your welcome jblake. I regret I may have responded too quickly. Knowledge is a desired benefit I seek through debate. Thank you for your help. I recant my assertion that their is no precedent for jury nullification. However, after studying the evidence put forth by my opponent, it appears that his definition in the first, and statements in the second round, may be misguided. "Jury Nullification - the ability of a jury to ignore a law that it finds unjust in a specific case" He reiterates; "[A] jury....has the ability to acquit on any grounds (including that they find a law unjust),..." The idea that a jury may ignore a law that they may "find...unjust", regardless of the facts of the case seem to be unfounded by the evidence introduced. His final statement in the first round contradicts what I perceive the previous two statements meant. "Any attempt or any law removing the power of jury nullification is unconstitutional (such as the law requiring judges to inform juries that they must decide a case based on the law, as described by the judge)." The qualifying statement here is important; "as described by the judge" it seems to me that the idea of jury nullification is that the jury may be the final arbitor of what the law says, not whether the law is just. It has also been said that a jury may acquit if they believe "that the law was not intended to apply to such a state of facts and that to return a guilty verdict would be unjust"[1] Although it does seem to be evident that some juries in our past have ignored law based on their disapproval of the law i.e. segregation, this is not the expected duty of a jury, however. There seems to be little recourse for this, I have to admit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>" 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. "<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Actually, you will have to excuse my ignorance. After over 7 years studying the US Constitution and our founding, I am embarrased to say this is the first time I've been exposed to the entire idea. So it would be helpful to me to cite some cases so I might further my education. Moving on to what my opponent has put forth as evidence. The qoute by J. Jay in Georgia v. Brailsford. (Qoute b appears to be attributed to Jay, according to the reference cited, although it does not appear in that exact form in that case. It is simular to the qoute referenced to Samual Chase. Unfortunatly, the site does not give the reference.) In Brailsford, Jay's statement makes it clear that, although "it is the province of the court to decide" what the law is, the jury has the final say. What is important is the distinction between determining what the law implies versus what the judge says the law is, and the ability to disregard the law in its entirety. Several statements in the same paragragh support this finding. I will focus on this sentence; "On this, and on every other occasion, however, we have no doubt, you will pay that respect, which is due to the opinion of the court: For, as on the one hand, it is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumbable, that the court are the best judges of the law." "the court are the best judges of the law". This is not saying that the judges are the legislator of law. Ipso facto juries seem to have a right to determine what the law says, and its intent, since this is the only authority of the court with regards to the law, and not whether the law itself is just. Of course, in the closed proceedings of a jury deliberation, whose to know except for the reason they give. Yet, I'm not sure if they are required to give reason. Further statements represented in the source cited by my opponent, "Source: http://www.stormy.org...... ", seem to prove this point. >>>>>>>>>> - Lysander Spooner "An Essay On the Trial by Jury" 1852 "There are five separate tribunals to veto laws: representative,senate, executive, judicial and jury. It's the right and duty of juries to hold all laws invalid that are unjust or oppressive, in their opinion. If a jury does not have this right, the government is absolute and the people are slaves. Is it absurd that twelve ignorant men should sit by and see the law decided erroneously? The justices are untrustworthy and are fond of power and authority. To allow them to dictate the law would surrender all property, liberty and rights of the people into the hands of arbitrary power." >>>>>>>>>>>> The first two sentences in this essay seems to support the idea that a jury could nullify law. However, the remainder of the qoute puts it in the prospective of ignoring a judges claim of what the law is, if that jury finds the judges opinion of the law erroneous. So it does seem that jury nullification is part of the authority of the jury. And I agree that this is protected by the Constitution. Yet its historic practice, as far as I can tell, is limmited to the determination of what the law is, not whether the law itself is just. Having said that, it would seem that the jury may find a law unconstitutional, and therefore, ignore that law. That would be based on what the jury believes is the Supreme Law as agreed upon by the people over the legislation put into effect by the representatives, not on what the jury deems just in their own prejudices. further more the states have the authority to discontinue any such adherance if specificaly banned in their state constitutions. As the "trial by jury" may be disregarded by the states altogether. notes: [1] The Jury By Trial, A Political, Philosophical and Psychological Examination of the Jury(1993) The Oxford Guide to the Supreme Court 2nd edition, trial by jury