Editing Jury nullification (section)

==Background==
[[File:The Jury by John Morgan.jpg|thumb|upright=1.6|right|A 19th-century jury]]

In the past, it was feared that a single judge or panel of government officials might be unduly influenced to follow established legal practice, even when that practice had drifted from its origins. In most modern Western legal systems, judges often instruct juries to act only as "[[finder of fact|finders of fact]]", whose role it is to determine the veracity of the evidence presented, the weight accorded to the evidence,<ref name=jurisdictionaryfact /> to apply that evidence to the law as explained by the judge, and to reach a verdict; but not to question the law itself. Similarly, juries are routinely cautioned by courts and some attorneys not to allow sympathy for a party or other affected persons to compromise the fair and dispassionate evaluation of evidence. These instructions are criticized by advocates of jury nullification. Some commonly cited historical examples of jury nullification involve jurors refusing to convict persons accused of violating the [[Fugitive Slave Act]] by assisting runaway slaves or being fugitive slaves themselves, and refusal of American colonial juries to convict a defendant under [[English law]].<ref name= GaspeeAffair />

Jury nullification is the source of much debate. Some maintain that it is an important safeguard of last resort against wrongful imprisonment and government tyranny.<ref name="Heffernan&Kleinig2000" /><ref name="Jonakait2006" /> Some view it as a violation of the right to a [[jury trial]], which undermines the law;<ref name="Jonakait2006" /> whereas others, such as those members of Congress who voted to impeach Supreme Court Justice [[Samuel Chase]] for instructing a jury against nullification, view a jury as a body charged with judging both law and fact.  Some view it as a violation of the [[juror's oath|oath sworn by jurors]]. In the United States, some view the requirement that jurors take an oath to be unlawful in itself, while still others view the oath's reference to "deliverance" to ''require'' nullification of unjust law: "will well and truly try and a true deliverance make between the United States and the defendant at the bar, and a true verdict render according to the evidence, so help [me] God". {{cite court|litigants=United States v. Green|vol=556|reporter=F.2d|opinion=71|court=D.C. Cir.|date=1977}}<ref name="Shapiro2003" />

Some fear that nullification could be used to permit violence against socially unpopular factions.<ref name= jurylaw2007/> They point to the danger that a jury may choose to convict a defendant who has not broken the letter of the law. However, judges retain the rights both to decide sentences and to disregard juries' guilty verdicts, acting as a check against malicious juries. Jury nullification may also occur in civil suits, in which the verdict is generally a finding of liability or lack of liability (rather than a finding of guilty or not guilty).<ref name="Noah2001" />

The main [[deontic|ethical]] issue involved in jury nullification is the tension between democratic [[self-government]] and integrity.<ref>{{citation|volume=69|publisher=S. Cal. L. Rev.|page=2039|date=1995–1996|title=Verdicts of Conscience: Nullification and Necessity as Jury Responses to Crimes of Conscience|last=Schopp |first=Robert F. |url=http://heinonlinebackup.com/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/scal69&section=58}}</ref> The argument has been raised that prosecutors are not allowed to seek jury nullification, and therefore defendants should not be allowed to seek it either;<ref>{{citation|volume=7|publisher=Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy |page=51|date=1997–1998|title=Comments on Jury Nullification|last=Bissell |first=John W.|url=http://heinonlinebackup.com/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/cjlpp7&section=9}}</ref> however, for a prosecutor to nullify a law in this context would require negating the presumption of innocence. For this reason, prosecutorial nullification is typically defined as declining to prosecute.<ref>{{citation|publisher=Boston College Law Review|date=2011|title=Prosecutorial Nullification|author1-link=Roger Anthony Fairfax Jr.|last=Fairfax|first=Roger A.|url=https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/schools/law/bclawreview/pdf/52_4/02_fairfax.pdf|access-date=April 12, 2016|archive-date=March 9, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210309030829/https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/schools/law/bclawreview/pdf/52_4/02_fairfax.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref> Nevertheless, there is little doubt as to the ability of a jury to nullify the law. Today, there are several issues raised by jury nullification, such as:
# Whether juries can or should be instructed or informed of their power to nullify.
# Whether a judge may remove jurors "for cause" when they refuse to apply the law as instructed.
# Whether a judge may punish a juror for practicing jury nullification.
# Whether all legal [[argument]]s, except perhaps on motions {{lang|la|[[in limine]]}} to exclude evidence, should be made in the presence of the jury.

In some cases in the United States, a [[stealth juror]] will attempt to get on a jury in order to nullify the law.<ref>{{citation|title=The Stealth Juror: Reality or Rarity?|url=http://www.abanet.org/litigation/mo/premium-lt/articles/trialpractice/0707_gilleland.html|publisher=American Bar Association|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081121134850/http://www.abanet.org/litigation/mo/premium-lt/articles/trialpractice/0707_gilleland.html|archive-date=2008-11-21}}</ref> Some lawyers use a [[shadow defense]] to expose the jury to information that would otherwise be inadmissible, hoping that evidence will trigger a nullification.<ref>{{citation|title=Putting on a Jury Nullification Defense and Getting Away with It|author=Hall Jr., John Wesley|year=2003}}</ref><ref>{{citation|title=Using Theories and Themes to Acquit the Guilty|last=Conrad |first=Clay|year=1998}}</ref>