For Book: Legal Question Re Jury Nullification

[TromboneAl]

One of the subplots in my upcoming legal thriller will concern jury nullification.


In this case, the main character will be defending a public person who is generally despised. The jury finds him guilty even though the evidence is lacking.


In situations like this (aka jury vilification), the judge will often give a directed verdict of not guilty.


Here's my question:


In that situation, would the judge interview the jury members to see whether they were ignoring the law when they brought a not guilty verdict?

 

[braumeister]

I think it would be up to the judge, unless there were a state law requiring it. Interestingly, I was in this exact position once.

Many years ago I was on a jury in Ohio in a murder case. It was very difficult because of all the complications of the situation, and and the trial went on for at least a week IIRC. Then we spent two full days in deliberation. We even asked a couple of times for clarifications of the judge's instructions.

In the end, we found the defendant guilty. The judge thanked us for our service, then ruled him not guilty, based on a peripheral consideration that had not even been addressed in the instructions to the jury. It was exceedingly strange, and we were all gobsmacked at the outcome. It made the newspapers next day, then was dropped.

 

[OldShooter]

I think you have jury nullification backwards. From your link: "Jury nullification is a concept where members of a trial jury find a defendant not guilty if they do not support a government's law, do not believe it is constitutional or humane, or do not support a possible punishment for breaking the law."

 

[Bestwifeever]

One of the subplots in my upcoming legal thriller will concern jury nullification.


In this case, the main character will be defending a public person who is generally despised. The jury finds him guilty even though the evidence is lacking.


In situations like this (aka jury vilification), the judge will often give a directed verdict of not guilty.


Here's my question:


In that situation, would the judge interview the jury members to see whether they were ignoring the law when they brought a not guilty verdict?

I could see the judge asking if they were ignoring the instructions to the jury, but surely the jury is not expected to know the law—they only know the facts of the case as presented to them by the parties’ lawyers.

 

[sengsational]

I know nothing about the law, but I've watched my share of "Law & Order", lol!


Here's my assignment for you Al. Watch this episode of "Law & Order":


Nullification - After the cops trace an eagle tattoo on a man shot and killed while holding up an armored truck to a group of militia members, McCoy finds himself facing one of their number as the pro se counsel for his friends, arguing for the concept of "jury nullification", the right of a jury to protect a defendant from an unjust law by acquittal despite the evidence.

 

[Walt34]

In that situation, would the judge interview the jury members to see whether they were ignoring the law when they brought a not guilty verdict?

The judge may, or may not, it would be up to the individual.

Also, know that not all states allow jury nullification. MD does, as the law says that the jury "shall be the trier of fact as well as of law" but in practice it rarely happens because the attorneys and the courts generally don't tell the jury they have that authority.

So if the book states a location, check whether the law in that state allows it.

 

[TromboneAl]

Glad to have you guys. This book may actually work despite my ignorance.

>I think you have jury nullification backwards.

Actually, it can go either way, but when the jury uses it to convict, the judge has the option of a directed verdict of not guilty—this seems the more interesting case.



>Interestingly, I was in this exact position once.
Amazing, since I've read that it's very rare.


>The judge may, or may not, it would be up to the individual.
Good. That will make it easier to get things across to the reader.


>So if the book states a location, check whether the law in that state allows it.
Right. It will be in California.


Nullification won't be mentioned during the trial neither the attorneys nor the judge. I'll have the judge interview the jury afterward, and although he suspects that one juror brought it up and convinced the others, he won't know for sure.


Thanks.