|Week Three Paper |Max Pts |Your Pts |
|Word Count |1 |1 |
|APA |2 |2 |
|Gram. Sp. Punct. |1 |1 |
| | | |
|Defining Terms |1 |1 |
|Examples used |2 |2 |
|Content |3 |3 |
|TOTAL |10 |10 |

Jury Nullification Paper
Therese Carlon
June 3, 2012
Joseph Mariconda

The United States Declaration of Independence has been viewed over the first two centuries as one of the definitive government documents that spell out both racial and ethnic equality for all Americans. However, there is a section of this worthy document that refers to one of the foundational premises for our founding freedoms: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness” (U.S. Declaration of Independence, 1776). In the South in the first half of the 20th century it was predominately African-Americans who felt the retribution of those in government who classified them as ‘less than human’, and treated them as such. After the smoke had cleared it became clear that the tenets so dramatically voiced in the Declaration did not survive into the 20th and 21st centuries. This paper will address a part of state and federal agencies that have been set over the citizens of this country to enforce and maintain law and order. It will also address the strong emotions and feelings expressed by the American minorities as to whether we, as a nation, have been successful in promoting liberty and justice for all.
Does Ethnicity Influence Courtroom Proceedings and Judicial Practices A 1999 study was conducted to determine whether bias existed in the courtrooms of our nation and if so, to what degree. The name of this study was, “How the Public Views the State Courts: A 1999 Survey found: Although most Americans (83%) feel that “people like them” are treated either better or the same as others, that perception is not shared by African-Americans. Two-thirds of African-Americans feel that “people like them” are treated somewhat or far worse than other people . . . Almost 70% of African-American respondents think that African-Americans, as a group, get “Somewhat Worse” or “Far Worse” treatment from the courts, whereas over 40% of White/Non-Hispanic and Hispanic respondents have that opinion (ncsonline.org. 2009). In the subsequent 13 years, there has been very little change in our legal and criminal courts as it pertains to minorities. With the additional stigma of poverty and poorly educated defendants who are primarily minorities of mixed race and ethnic background it soon becomes clear that these cases are almost always pleaded out without ever having a jury trial (McNamara & Burns, p256, 2009). It is estimated that roughly 95% of defendants facing felony charges are minorities and of those minorities, roughly 78-84% are African-Americans. In cases that do make it to trial, racial and ethnic minorities are tried by all-White juries (McNamara & Burns, p263, 2009). Given these statistics, and with the recent situations post 9/11, it becomes increasingly obvious that, for most Americans, ethnic persons, whether citizens or not, are to be wary of and treated with caution and suspicion, merited or not.
Jury Nullification Definition of Jury Nullification Jury Nullification is the refusal, on the part of a sitting jury in a civil or criminal trial, who chooses not to convict a defendant, despite the presence of evidence that consistently and strongly suggests his or her guilt. The jury chooses to ‘judge the law’ and not its general validity (Rubenstein, 2006). Pro Arguments for Nullification Although most federal courts deny the existence of valid nullification, citing Sparf v. United States 156 U.S. 51 (1895), which stated that judges were not required to notify jurors of the inherent right and ability to adjudicate the law in a given case. This shot down an earlier case, Georgia v. Brailsford (1704), which mandated that the court inform jurors of all of their rights regarding case facts and case law (Rubenstein, 2006). Throughout this nations’ history, jury nullification has had its place in the courtrooms of our system of justice. There are any number of reasons why a jury would nullify a specific case, but this paper will address two such categories: (1) Classical, and (2) Symbolic: Classical This category occurs when the jury strongly holds that the law on trial is unjust on its face. An example of this might be: in the event that a defendant, generally a minority, is on trial for a minor drug offense. Another example of this category is: when jurors feel that although the law may be just, the application of the assigned punishment is excessive. In this instance the jury is saying that the law is just but votes to acquit because they maintain that the assigned legal consequences are unjustly applied. An example of this would be in a case involving campus protestors charged with trespass (Rubenstein, 2006). Symbolic This category is most likely the one that has received the most exposure in the media and court of public opinion. It holds that jurors acquit defendants because although they agree on the legalities that were broken by the defendant, they feel it necessary to send a political message either to society in general or executive/legislative agencies in particular. There is definitely some wiggle-room for jury nullification especially in light of the overwhelming statistics that indicate that unlike white defendants, minority defendants are often given the narrowest of latitude when it comes to representation and sentencing. Con Arguments for Nullification For the purposes of addressing reasons against nullification, we will return to Sparf v. United States indicated earlier in this paper and expound upon it. In brief: the case involved members of a ship’s crew who murdered the second mate. After hearing all the testimony, the jury asked the judge if, due to exigent circumstances during the trial, they could vote guilty but move for leniency. The judge refused and the case made its way through the courts until it landed in the highest court in the land. The Supreme Court relied on a pure Formalist argument (Rubenstein, 2006). A Formalist argument is a method of reasoning in which the invocation of rules and the resultant conclusive deductions, based on the evidentiary process, stands as the sufficiency for every (without exception) authoritative legal determination (Rubenstein, 2006). Examples of Jury Nullification in the Late 20st Century Without a doubt, two of the most celebrated criminal cases in the last decade of the 20th century involved a former professional football player and four of L.A.’s ‘finest’. Jurors in both the criminal trial of Orenthal James (OJ) Simpson and the criminal trial of the four Los Angeles police officers (three were acquitted) who, on video tape, beat Rodney King, found the defendants ‘not guilty’. This set off a public diatribe citing racial prejudice, class bias, and a perceived naiveté regarding police practices. It was widely held that the jurors voted nullification regardless of the overwhelming evidence that strongly indicated the guilt of Simpson and all of the four officers (Leipold, 1997)

To Nullify or Not to Nullify – That is the Question While there are solid arguments both pro and con for jury nullification, it is also glaringly apparent the proponents in both camps feel strongly about their viewpoint regarding this controversial subject. After weighing several different examples on either side of this issue, I have come to the conclusion, that despite some very excellent reasons on both sides, I am coming down on the side of those opposed. My reasons are that, at its core, nullification would appear to be a viable forum for personal or political sentiments and as a vehicle for executive and legislative change. Yet, nothing is ever that simple, especially when it comes to the deeply human setting of our criminal justice system. Although criminal trials can go on for long periods of time, there is little if any opportunity for 12 citizens to fully examine all the possibilities inherent on the side of both the defense and prosecution. A jury trial is a microcosm of one crime committed by one or more defendants for a specific reason. Whether it appears that justice is truly blind and even though, as a jury, an opportunity presents itself to nullify either for race or ethnicity, or a hundred other possible scenarios, one must always remember that courtrooms prove to be poor forums for political statements. Life is not fair and there is a common consensus that not all of our laws are necessarily fair, but as a juror, a person is responsible for weighing the evidence, without passion or prejudice, and renders a verdict based on that information alone. To acquit someone for any other reason is to diminish the premise upon which our entire legal system is founded: that there will be justice – for all.

References
Leipold, A. (1997). Jury Nullification: A Pervasion of Justice?” Retrieved from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1272/is_n2628_v126/ai_19782190/
McNamara, R. & Burns, R. (2009). Multiculturalism in the criminal justice system, p256, p263. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Retrieved from https://classroom.phoenix.edu/afm214/secure/view-thread.jspa?threadID=43529120 ncsonline..org. (2009). Investigating Difference: Human and cultural Relations in Criminal Justice, p226-7. Retrieved from http://ncsonline.org
Rubenstein, A. (2006). Verdicts of Conscience: Nullification and the Modern Jury Trial. Retrieved from http://www.columbialawreview.org/assets/pdfs/106/4/Rubenstein.pdf
Ushistory.org. (1995) The Declaration of Independence: The Want, Will, and Hopes of the People. Retrieved from http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/