Quote Quoting Taxing Matters
View Post


The jury is not supposed to do it. The jury is specifically instructed on the basis it is supposed to decide the case. And, at least in the federal system, should a judge learn during the course of the trial that a juror intends to apply jury nullification, the court may dismiss that juror. Indeed, that was the holding of the case yourself linked. “Similarly, we conclude that a juror who is determined to ignore his duty, who refuses to follow the court's instructions on the law and who thus threatens to ‘undermine [ ] the impartial determination of justice based on law,’ Krzyske, 836 F.2d at 1021, is subject to dismissal during the course of deliberations under Rule 23(b).” United States v. Thomas, 116 F.3d 606 (2d Cir. 1997). In that case, the court pointed out that nullification is a violation of the juror’s oath and is contrary to the principles of the legal system. But, as I have already said, since the jury does not have to explain the reasons for its verdict the process allows for jury nullification anyway. The jury can decide to acquit for whatever reasons it chooses since it cannot be questioned why it arrived at that decision. Unfortunately that means, as we have seen in history, that juries sometimes acquit or convict for totally inappropriate reasons, including the race of the defendant or the race of the victim.

Well no kidding. That’s why an officer of the court cannot suggest they do it. The jury can and has done it. It really is that simple. You can say they aren’t supposed to or anything else you want. Bottom line: they can and do and the reasons may stay a total mystery to all but them.