The Volokh Conspiracy Opinion

Rethinking jury nulli cation

By Ilya Somin August 7, 2015

Jury nullification occurs when jurors choose not to convict a defendant they believe to be guilty of the offense charged, usually
because they conclude that the law in question is unjust or the punishment is excessive. When I first thought about jury
nullification as a young law student, I was inclined to be against it. Yes, it could potentially be used to curb unjust laws. But it
can also be a vehicle for jury prejudice and bias. Most notoriously, all-white juries in the Jim Crow-era South often acquitted
blatantly guilty white defendants who had committed racially motivated crimes against blacks. Moreover, it seems unfair if
Defendant A gets convicted while Defendant B is acquitted after committing exactly the same offense, merely because B was
lucky enough to get a jury that disapproves of the underlying law.

I still think these standard objections to nullification have some merit. But I now give much more credence to the opposing
case. In this recent USAToday column, legal scholar Glenn Reynolds provides a strong defense of nullification. As he points
out, the sort of discretion exercised by nullifying jurors has much in common with prosecutorial discretion and can be justified
by many of the same considerations:

Of course, prosecutors have essentially the same power, since theyre under no obligation to bring charges
against even an obviously guilty defendant. But while the power of juries to let guilty people go free in the
name of justice is treated as suspect and called jury nullification, the power of prosecutors to do the exact
same thing is called prosecutorial discretion, and is treated not as a bug, but as a feature in our justice
system. But theres no obvious reason why one is better than the other. Yes, prosecutors are professionals
but theyre also politicians, which means that their discretion may be employed politically. And theyre
repeat players in the justice system, which makes them targets for corruption in a way that juries
laypeople who come together for a single case arent.

As Reynolds points out, jury nullification is supported by longstanding Anglo-American legal tradition, and was considered a
vital check on government power by many of the Founders. The case for jury nullification today is strengthened by the

enormous growth of modern criminal law, which has expanded to the point where almost all of us are guilty of some crime or
other (an issue that Reynolds himself has written about). In a world where almost everyone is a criminal, there is already
enormous arbitrariness, because prosecutors can only go after only a small percentage of the many perpetrators. Jury
nullification is unlikely to make that situation worse than it already is.

Moreover, many of the crimes on the books are ones that either should not be illegal at all, or should not carry such harsh
penalties. As a practical matter, jury nullification is much more likely to target those kinds of laws than ones that rest on a
broad social consensus to the effect that the activities they ban should be criminalized and violators subjected to severe
punishment.

The racial, ethnic, and religious prejudice that made nullification dangerous in earlier eras certainly has not completely
disappeared. But it has greatly diminished. That reduces, even if it does not eliminate, a key downside of nullification.

Jury nullification is far from a complete solution to the problem of overcriminalization. It would be better to simply remove
many of these laws from the books entirely. But nullification can help improve the situation at the margin. For that reason,
among others, I am much more sympathetic to it than I used to be.

UPDATE: It is worth noting that Reynolds column was partly inspired by a recent case where a jury nullification advocate was
charged with jury tampering for handing out pro-nullification leaflets outside a courthouse. For reasons that co-blogger
Eugene Volokh explains here, such prosecutions likely violate the First Amendment.

UPDATE #2: I should also note that my limited support for jury nullification is not in tension with my opposition to
mandatory jury service, and my concern that jurors will decide some cases badly because of ignorance. Whether jury service is
mandatory (as in the status quo) or voluntary (as I advocate), jury nullification can still help combat unjust laws at the margin.
And even if jurors might nullify some good laws out of ignorance, this has to be weighed against the reality that a high
proportion of the criminal laws currently on the books are dubious, at best.

TOP STORIES

Military strategist H.R. McMaster to be new national security

adviser
President Trump praised the Army lieutenant general as a man of tremendous
talent. McMaster has been recognized for his leadership in the Persian Gulf and Iraq wars and has spent virtually no
time in Washington.
McMaster will assume the position at a time of widespread security challenges, including Russias alleged meddling in
last years election.
By John Wagner, Missy Ryan and Greg Jae

The Daily 202: McMaster literally wrote the book on Vietnam

Trump decries anti-Semitic acts as horrible amid vandalism targeting Jewish cemetery
Hours before the president's remarks, Hillary Clinton called on her former rival to speak out against anti-Semitic acts after
more than 170 Jewish graves were found toppled at a cemetery in Missouri.
By Fred Barbash, Ben Guarino and Brian Murphy 1 hour ago

Trump administration seeks to prevent panic over new immigration enforcement policies