What is Jury Nullification and does it matter?

Jury nullification, defined by Merriam Webster as the acquitting of a defendant by a jury in disregard of the judge's instructions and contrary to the jury's findings of fact, was the topic of a series of letters to the editor in the March 31, 2008 issue of Time.

One writes, "[Jury nullifcation] undermines the legal system -- society would collapse if everyone applied this principle for his own social grievances."

Upon reading these letters to the editor, I thought about my own experience on a jury almost two years ago and about the role of the jury in general. We were given no rules for how to determine the verdict. We were given instructions for what to consider. But how far should our interpretation go -- Should the jury evaluate evidence according to the trial's rules or should the jury go further and consider the validity of the laws considered broken?

In my jury, we had one advocate for jury nullification on our panel. This person had a prior negative experience with a law enforcement official and was inclined to distrust the testimony of
this case's law enforcement official (a sherriff's deputy). At the time, we argued that prior experience was not a consideration of evidence in this trial and should not be considered.

Dictionary.com defines 'jury' as, "a group of persons sworn to render a verdict or true answer on a question or questions officially submitted to them." and goes on to define it as, "such a group selected according to law and sworn to inquire into or determine the facts concerning a cause or an accusation submitted to them and to render a verdict to a court."

According to these definitions, which are in line with most other definitions I found, the jury neither makes law nor interprets law. Instead, the jury interprets evidence with the expectation to agree or disagree with a statement of events.

Given these definition, is jury nullification an acceptable practice? There is no rule stating that the evaluation of evidence must be 'reasonable' and the fact that the definition of jury nullification is to say that the finding is contrary to the jury's finding of fact, implies that the jury agrees - - but what if the jury does not agree? In a case where there is not a unanimous opinion, would either side be justified in accusing the other of jury nullification?

I was uncomfortable with the letter to the editor originally but was not sure why. Part of the reason for writing this post was to identify the cause of that discomfort. After reviewing my notes from jury duty and exploring the definition of juries and jury nullification, it is clear to me that the concept of jury nullification is ultimately pretty ambiguous. Specifically, the section of the definition which says "contrary to the jury's findings of fact" is open for interpreation. Is it the majority of the jury's finding of fact or is it unanimous?

The majority argument does not hold up because the very purpose of the jury in most cases is to identify unanimous consent; if there is a split, the majority does not hold up and those not in the majority should not be held in disregard as jury nullifiers.

On the other hand, if the definition refers to acting in contrary the unanimous jury's finding of fact, then apparently the only case where jury nullification is definitive would be if the jury votes unanimously on a verdict in the jury room and then one or more jurors changes his/her opinion during role call. All othre cases of jury nullification would simply be split decisions.

What about the argument of conscious? If I intentionally disregard the instructions but do not tell anyone, am I partaking in jury nullification? It is a moot point that does not matter. Either the jury unanimously agrees or disagrees. The high bar of unanimity for acquittal or conviction works to govern any individuals prejudice.

Back to the original letter, I am most uncomfortable with it because the writer threatens chaos and destruction if the masses do not adhere. I just do not agree that would happen and I do not agree that people should adhere to a principles they do not agree with out of fear.