Travis Hreno

Jury nullification, in its simplest definition, occurs when a jury returns a not guilty verdict for a defendant it believes to be legally guilty of the crime charged. To put this explicitly, a jury nullifies when, despite believing both a) that the defendant did, beyond a reasonable doubt, commit the act/omission in question, and b) that such behavior is, in fact, prohibited by law, nevertheless declares the defendant innocent. This book explores the specifically philosophical aspects of the phenomenon. Is jury nullification a right? A power? A mere ability? A privilege? A pernicious form of juror malfeasance? Is a system that allows for jury nullification more, or less just, than one that does not? This important book fills a gap in the current scholarship around jury nullification, which, for the most part, has been confined to purely doctrinal analyses, rather than the broader ethical, social, political, and philosophical contours of this issue.

Jury nullification occurs when a jury votes to acquit a defendant in a criminal trial despite its belief that the defendant is, in fact, guilty. One of the main objections to this practice is that it subverts the rule of law. In this paper, I examine this objection by expanding on what is entailed by the rule of law objection and demonstrating that the very principles that the rule of law are built upon – liberty and autonomy – are, in fact, preserved and promoted, and not subverted by, jury nullification.

Jury nullification refers to the behaviour of a jury that votes to acquit a defendant of criminal charges despite believing that: a) the defendant did in fact commit the actions with which she is charged; and, b) such actions are, indeed, prohibited by law. While there are many objections to this practice, the most striking thing about jury nullification is that nothing is done to actually prevent or punish jurors who behave this way. In this paper, I explore three rationales for why jury nullification is an officially tolerated, if not necessarily welcome, element of Anglo-American criminal law jury trials. All three of these rationales centre in one way or another on the idea that the very concept of a jury trial necessitates allowing the jury to extend its traditional purview in such a manner

Jury nullification, that phenomenon whereby a jury returns a not-guilty verdict for a defendant it believes to be technically guilty of the alleged crime, is, obviously, a controversial issue. What is not a matter of controversy, however, is the fact that the law protects the jury’s ability to behave this way. Much of the controversy therefore centers on whether juries ought to be informed of this ability to nullify free from legal redress. In this paper I examine a number of arguments both for and against the view that juries ought to be, in the words of the literature, fully informed. In the end I conclude that there is significant empirical evidence to suggest that, rather than simply promoting justice and mercy, as proponents of the instruction argue, fully informing a jury has the unforeseen consequence of encouraging juries to behave in a manner I label bad-faith, and that such bad-faith juries in fact corrupt the principles of justice and fairness that are the cornerstones of the trial system.