Masters Theses

Date of Award

5-2006

Degree Type

Thesis

Degree Name

Master of Arts

Major

Political Science

Major Professor

Martin Carcieri

Abstract

A jury in a criminal trial typically must make a decision about the guilt of a given defendant. Occasionally, the jury moves one step beyond this basic task and chooses to exercise its nullification power. That is, the jury decides that, according to the evidence, a given defendant is guilty of the crime with which he or she is charged, but that applying the law to that defendant would, essentially, not be doing justice.

While much is known about the process by which juries make decisions, the specific factors that encourage juries to engage in nullification and the circumstances under which they will elect to do so are, in some sense, a mystery. However, we cannot hope to understand when, why or how a jury may choose nullification without first understanding the history behind jury nullification and how it works or should work in practice. One way to gain such an understanding is to contrast the view of nullification advanced by its advocates, like the Fully Informed Jury Association, with the view of nullification adopted by the modem criminal justice system.

In 1995, in Fully Informed Jury Association v. County of San Diego the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that California had a compelling state interest in preventing FIJA from place newsletters in a newsstand within 50 yards of the San Diego County Courthouse. This case exemplifies the idea that the courts tend to cast the practice of jury nullification in terms of "juror lawlessness". However, the courts' view of jury nullification is misguided. While states likely have an interest in limiting instances of nullification, this interest cannot be characterized as compelling where jury nullification is properly understood.

Download
Files over 3MB may be slow to open. For best results, right-click and select "save as..."

Share

COinS