Comments on: Jury Nullification

By: Ed Donegan

Ed Donegan — Sat, 06 Aug 2011 04:06:05 +0000

I agree with Quincy’s instincts on eliminating wild cards such as a judge’s whim or erratically motivated or influenced juries from the criminal justice process, but I see some role for nullification, which may not outweigh its liabilities.

I think we have all seen Government at times act in clearly vindictive ways, clearly partisan in some manner or goal, and wielding what were provided to it as tools as though they were weaponry instead.

I think in my own understanding of jury nullification there may be some overlap between assessment of credibility and pure nullification.

It seems to me if a prosecution is conducted with such abhorrent fervor or has simply stretched its presentation of the case just too far beyond what reason and fairness would dictate, then both the credibility of the prosecution, and the sanctity it has to prosecute, begin to crumble.

In such a case, even if some facts otherwise would seem to be proved in the trial, should a juror not wonder if given what they have seen from the prosecution, should even that be in doubt too just based on loss of faith in the prosecution as a lawfully motivated or credible actor?

I realize that is not nullification in its truest sense-that a juror is convinced of guilt but acquits anyway, but I think doubting what what otherwise has been proved utilizing a credibility standard is very close to nullification.

(great blog btw. accessible to the lay like myself, but weighty, relevant, and well presented topics.)

By: Adam

Adam — Wed, 03 Aug 2011 18:01:28 +0000

Great article Quincy. It seems like jury nullification would be a good thing to have when government becomes tyrannical. One question is whether the misuse of the power of jury nullification causes more harm than it is worth. Perhaps it could be analogized to the question of whether to keep a firearm in the home for protection. A firearm could be crucial in the case of an intruder, but the potential for misuse must not be underestimated.
So long as the laws are made by the representatives of the people, I think it makes sense to impose some limits on jury nullification. It does not seem that a small number of citizens selected at random have much of an advantage over the population at large in determining the morality or justice of a law.
This article made me think that jury nullification is a somewhat amorphous issue. It seems like it would be difficult to study empirically. It is difficult to tell whether jury nullification has occurred where the jury simply renders a verdict of guilty or not guilty.
The article also made me think that jury nullification is probably quite unpredictable in its application. Jurors who are unaware of the concept of jury nullification would be less likely to use it. As you noted, different jurisdictions have different laws and policies regarding jury nullification (e.g. dismissing jurors for cause and whether counsel may argue for jury nullification and the varying consequences for making that argument).
Thanks for the article!

By: Quincy

Quincy — Mon, 25 Jul 2011 20:26:42 +0000

I’m pretty sure that the above comment is an auto-post caused by my linking to the fija.org website. But it is somewhat on topic, so I approved it.

By: Mark Schmidter

Mark Schmidter — Mon, 25 Jul 2011 14:20:21 +0000

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Contact Nick Egoroff
(321) 228-9761
Email nicholasegoroff@hotmail.com

Chief Judge Belvin Perry to Decide Constitutional Free Speech Court Case Tuesday July 26

On June 29, 2011, in the context of the on going Casey Anthony murder trial, Judge Belvin Perry ordered the arrest of a local roofing contractor who was handing out leaflets on Orange County Court House grounds. Mr. Mark Schmidter was offering a one page flyer explaining that juries had the right to find defendants not guilty if they disagreed with the law in question. Judge Perry had previously ordered that no leaflets could be distributed on court property except in designated free speech zones far away from the flow of pedestrian traffic.

Mr. Schmidter will stand trial before Judge Perry on July 26 at 8:30am in courtroom 19-D at the Orange County Courthouse.

Schmidter had been distributing the leaflets for about a year. “I’m a constitutional patriot and I just want my right to free speech restored,” said Schmidter who is 64.

Respected local attorney, Adam H. Sudbury, will be representing Mr. Schmidter. “The First Amendment right of free speech and of the press is one of the most sacred and fundamental rights that guarantees our liberty as Americans. Judge Perry’s order banning 1st Amendment activity on courthouse grounds constitutes an unconstitutional infringement on the rights of the people to engage in protected speech. This is one of the most interesting civil liberty cases arising out of Central Florida that I have ever seen.” Sudbury said.

In an ironic twist to such an important case, Judge Perry will be both judge and jury in deciding Schmidter’s 1st Amendment rights. Perry has refused to recuse himself. State Attorney Lawson Lamar has assigned his second in command, Bill Vose, to handle prosecutorial duties underscoring the importance of the trial.

Mr. Sudbury is available for comment at .