Jury Nullification: Your Right To Judge The Law

When I got a jury summons in the mail late last year, like most people, I wasn't very happy about it. I was dreading taking time out of my busy schedule and missing work to go sit in a courthouse listening to some boring trial that had nothing to do with me. I had heard of jury nullification before but didn't really understand what it was. A couple of weeks later when I met Bob Smilie, an activist who was passing out pamphlets by the Fully Informed Jury Association, I realized the power of the jury and what an amazing opportunity I had before me to make a difference in people's lives. After Bob told me about the power of jury nullification I couldn't wait to go to jury duty!

What is jury nullification?
Jury nullification is the right of the juror to vote their conscience. It is the right to not only judge the facts of the case but as well as the law itself. If a juror believes a law is unjust or the punishment for breaking that law is unjust they can vote "not guilty" even if the person on trial clearly broke the law. Jurors can not be punished for their decisions, and it only takes one juror with a conscience to set people free being charged for breaking an unjust law. In early American history judges informed juries of their right to nullify the law. These days you will not be selected as a juror or you will be kicked off the jury if judges or prosecutors find out that you know about jury nullification. So, if you're reading this and you receive a jury summons in the mail it is best to keep quiet about jury nullification until the trial is over. On a trial jury the jurors must reach a unanimous decision, but if you can't convince the other jurors that the person shouldn't be punished for an unjust law, you can always hang the jury by refusing to vote "guilty". Once a jury is hung it will result in a mistrial and then it may or may not be tried again in the future.
(Here's a video explaining jury nullification if you didn't understand my explanation)

When Bob told me about this, I was pumped about jury duty and tried to learn as much about it as I could before I went to the courthouse. I went to the Fully Informed Jury Association's website (www.fija.org) where I found a lot helpful information. One of the best things I came across was the document titled, Surviving Voir Dire, which gives you advice on how to get picked as a juror from the pool of potential jurors. I studied it thoroughly before I went to the jury duty. Little did I know, I was going to be in a pool of potential grand jurors and the selection process was more random than if I were in a pool for a trial jury (which is what most people get called to jury duty for). I wasn't asked many of the questions I was prepared to answer. In fact, the judge called my name first out of over 100 people and the only question I was asked was if I had ever been convicted of a crime. I answered him and he immediately made me the foreman of the grand jury. After all the grand jurors were selected the judge informed us that our jury duty service would be every Thursday for 6 months and we would be hearing 30-40 cases a day.

Like most people, I had no idea what a grand jury really was or what it did but I was really excited to learn I was in a position to hear and influence about 1000 cases over half a year. The judge told us that our 6 months of service would begin 2 months from the day we were selected. This gave me time to contact FIJA and learn as much as I could about the grand jury and jury nullification before I began hearing cases. I read the book, The Conviction Factory by Roger Roots, which gave me invaluable information on the history of the grand jury and how it has changed over time. I would highly recommend it to anyone who is interested in learning how grand juries are intended to be run. I learned how the grand jury was originally run by the people, separate from the state which acted as a safeguard against tyranny and how over time prosecutors have taken over the grand jury process and are now using it as a rubber stamp for indictments.
(Below is an interview of Bob Smilie and Me talking about jury nullification and my grand jury experience in more depth on Disenthrall)

Speaking of rubber stamps, the prosecutors made one with my and the vice foreman's name on them for signing subpoenas and indictments right after we were given a speech about how the grand jury was there to uphold the constitution, add checks and balances to our judicial system and not to be used as rubber stamps. I was shocked at how little information was given to us from the judge and prosecutors on how the process would work before we actually began hearing the cases. On the first day, I didn't even realize we were done hearing the first case, which only lasted about 2 minutes, until they asked if anyone had questions about it and started on the next one. Each case on average lasted about 5 minutes, and we would usually only hear information from the prosecution's side (usually the arresting officer and district attorney). Once every 80 or so cases we would receive a packet from a defense attorney on a case, which the district attorney would advice us not to waste time reading. Almost all the cases that we did were felony cases and more than half of the cases were victim-less crimes like drug possession. When the cases were all presented the prosecution would actually recommend to the jury how they should vote on each case and the jurors would almost always vote the way they were told.

Jury nullification on a grand jury is different. As I mentioned before, on a trial jury the jurors must come to a unanimous decision, and it only takes one juror to be able to hang the jury. On a grand jury it takes at least 9 jurors to "true bill" and at least 4 jurors to "no bill". A "true bill" means that the jury believes there is enough evidence to indict the person of the crime, and the case will move forward to trial. A "no bill" means that there is not enough evidence to indict and the case will not move forward. After each case is presented jurors have a chance to ask the prosecution questions and after all cases are presented then the jury goes to deliberations where they make their decisions on each one. In deliberations I tried arguing logically with the other jurors why I believed certain cases should be "no billed" and sometimes I was successful! Most of the time though, I would get the response, that the person had broken the law and should be punished for it. One thing I found to be more effective was to ask questions when the prosecution was presenting cases, especially about the constitutionality of the arresting police officers actions. There were many times that I found the police had actually broken the law while conducting investigations, searches and arrests. When I was able to point this out then the jury was usually all for "no billing" the case.

Over my 6 months on the grand jury I was successful in saving many people from being locked away due to a unjust laws, which I think is amazing! I'm just a regular guy who's 27 years old, with no college degree and I was able to have more power than law makers themselves and set people free. Everyone needs to know about jury nullification! Tell your friends and family about it , and get involved with organizations like FIJA, because you never know who you might be sharing this information with or how many lives you might save.

-Eric Haley