The Importance of Jury Nullification

I was called to jury duty along with about 45 other people to form a jury of 14 people - 12 jurors and 2 alternate jurors.  The experience reminded me of the importance of understanding our history and our Constitutional rights.  This was a felony criminal case, so the defendant faced substantial punishment, and that person is depending on their fellow citizens to do their civic duty and find not only the truth, but justice.  As you will see, those two are not necessarily one and the same.  It is critically important for us, as citizens, to take jury duty seriously and understand what is being asked of us.  Unfortunately, the judge and the attorneys, during the jury questioning process, not only failed to explain those rights, but they go out of their way to imply that as a juror, you "can only follow the law" in deciding the case.  There were many questions of potential jurors from the attorneys asking "can you follow the law as the judge explains it" and "can you put your opinions aside and render a guilty verdict if the state proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime."  They all go to great pains to make it appear as though jurors have no choice but to render a guilty verdict if the law was violated, but that couldn't be further from the truth.  They jury has much more power than that, but they don't want you to know it.  

The role of a jury is not only to decide if the defendant violated the law, but also, and perhaps most importantly - to determine if the law itself is just, and being applied in a just manner for this particular case.  This is called jury nullification and not only is it firmly embedded in the Constitution, but it's also a legal principle that goes back to English common law, predating the United States, and on which the US legal system is based.  The jury system is designed to be a check on government power.  That check occurs when a jury acquits a defendant, not because they believe the defendant is factually innocent, but because they disagree with the law itself, its application in the case, or the punishment it entails. This act effectively "nullifies" the law in that specific instance.

Jury nullification traces its origins back to English common law, which heavily influenced the American legal system. One of the earliest and most famous examples occurred in 1670 in the trial of William Penn and William Mead, two Quaker preachers charged with unlawful assembly for preaching in London after the English government banned such gatherings. The evidence of their "crime" was clear—they had indeed preached publicly—but the jury, led by Edward Bushel, refused to convict. Despite pressure from the judge, who even imprisoned the jurors for their defiance, they held firm, believing the law unjustly restricted religious freedom. This case established a precedent that jurors could vote their conscience, and "Bushel’s Case" solidified the jury’s independence in English law.

In the American colonies, jury nullification emerged as a tool of resistance against oppressive British rule. Colonists often used it to thwart unpopular laws imposed by the Crown, such as those enforcing taxes or restricting free speech. This practice carried over into the early United States, where it became intertwined with the revolutionary spirit of limiting government overreach.

The Constitution embeds the power of jury nullification in several places.  Specifically, the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a trial "by an impartial jury" in criminal cases. The framers intended juries to serve as a safeguard against tyranny, giving ordinary citizens the power to judge both the facts *and* the law’s justice in a given case. Early American legal thinkers, like John Adams, emphasized that jurors should decide according to their conscience.  Article III, Section 2 establishes the jury’s role in criminal trials and reflects the common-law tradition of jury independence inherited from England.  The Fifth Amendment protects the defendant from re-trial after acquittal.

Jury nullification in the American legal system flows from the firm belief of the founding fathers that citizens, not just judges or lawmakers, should have the final say in justice.  In 1735, John Peter Zenger, a New York printer, was tried for seditious libel after criticizing the royal governor. The law at the time didn’t allow truth as a defense—printing criticism was enough for guilt. Yet, the jury acquitted Zenger, nullifying the law because they believed it unjustly silenced free expression. This case laid groundwork for First Amendment protections in the U.S. Constitution.  This trial was well-known to the Founders and influenced their views.  They saw juries as a democratic check, capable of rejecting laws or prosecutions that violated natural rights or common sense.  John Adams and Thomas Jefferson both praised the Zenger case, where the jury ignored the judge’s instructions to convict, showing that nullification was an understood part of the system. This principle persists today, though courts often discourage it, as juries retain the inherent power to vote their conscience without legal repercussions.  Alexander Hamilton, in The Federalist Papers (No. 83), described juries as a bulwark against "oppressive" laws, suggesting they could temper strict legal enforcement with community values and went on to say, in 1804, “Jurors should acquit, even against the judge’s instruction… if exercising their judgment with discretion and honesty they have a clear conviction the charge of the court is wrong.”  James Madison said “In suits at common law, trial by jury is preserved… The jury is the best guardian of liberty.”  John Adams said “It is not only [the juror’s] right, but his duty… to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.” Thomas Jefferson said “I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.”  

Jury nullification emerged organically as a response to unjust laws and overzealous prosecutions, and has been used throughout history. It reflects a core tension in any legal system: the balance between rule of law and moral justice. When laws conflict with widely held ethical beliefs—or when they’re applied in ways perceived as tyrannical—juries historically stepped in as a "safety valve." It’s not about anarchy; it’s about ensuring the legal system remains accountable to the people it serves. The framers, wary of centralized power after British rule, embedded this principle to empower citizens directly.  The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 required citizens to return escaped slaves to their owners, even in free states, under harsh penalties. Northern juries frequently nullified these cases by acquitting defendants—both escaped slaves and those who aided them—despite clear evidence of guilt under the law. During Prohibition, juries often refused to convict individuals charged with possessing or selling alcohol, reflecting widespread public rejection of the Volstead Act. In some cities, acquittal rates for liquor violations exceeded 60%, effectively undermining enforcement.  During the Civil Rights Era, nullification was sometimes used by juries to acquit civil rights activists charged under segregationist laws. For example, in the 1960s, juries occasionally refused to convict Freedom Riders for violating Jim Crow transit laws, aiding the broader push for equality.

So, the next time you're asked to serve on a jury, remember that, even if they don't tell you it's your right (they won't), the jury has the absolute right to determine not only if the defendant violated the law, but to determine if the law itself is just, and being applied justly in that particular case.  If it's not, the jury has a duty to acquit.  Jurors are completely independent and cannot be punished in any way for rendering a verdict the judge or the attorneys don't like, nor do jurors owe any explanation to anyone as to why they rendered a verdict the way that they did.