Jury Nullification: The right and left hang in the balance.

I recently began the discussion of jury nullification and how its limited use may be the last tool of liberty available to the people. I started conversations with some local attorneys, which could have been my first mistake. I felt defense attorneys, especially those with great reverence for the Constitution, would be more open-minded about the subject. I was wrong. They have a deep dislike of the idea. As one attorney told me, “It’s the jury deciding to ignore the law.” He went on to say that the jury is sworn to uphold the law, and that is it. While I greatly respect this attorney, his opinion is a little closed-minded.

I remember going to the police academy and learning about all the cool things cops get to do. Once you are certified by Missouri to seek employment as a peace officer, you are also tasked with seeking continuing education. This is designed to keep law enforcement up to speed on changes in law, police practices, etc. I can only assume that it is similar for attorneys. Do they hold big conventions where they share training and conversation with their colleagues? Are they conditioned to a certain mentality about the law, juries, and jury nullification? I’m starting to think they must be. A defense attorney can find a technicality or a problem with the actions of the police and get a known murderer or child rapist freed. But a citizen acquitted by a jury of their peers who ignores an unjust law is somehow considered taboo? Are these the ethics taught in law school or at the big conventions? I don’t blame the attorneys; I know many of them and feel they are generally good. However, they are part of a system increasingly becoming political, two-tiered in enforcement, two-tiered in prosecution, and outright bureaucratic. I have personally overheard attorneys say something to this effect. I can get you this outcome for a certain amount of money, but I can get you a better result for this amount of money. Again, are these the ethics that somehow make the thought of jury nullification seem dirty?

What is jury nullification, and why is it still the best-kept secret available to the public? Essentially jury nullification is the jury deciding that a law is unjust, and the accused should be acquitted of the unjust law. Some say jury nullification is the jury ignoring the law. Some say it will lead to chaos. The reality is jury nullification stretches back to English common law. Jury nullification is largely responsible for overturning prohibition and the fugitive slave act. Jurors flat refused to convict many bootleggers and moonshiners. They also refused to convict those individuals who believed slavery was morally reprehensible and refused to return escaped enslaved people back to their slaveholders. In both cases, the jury ignored the law because they felt it was unjust. In both cases, the jury nullifiers were correct, and the attorneys were wrong. Jury nullification is one of the last legal options available for citizens to correct the actions of government. The problem is that most citizens have no idea what it is or how it can be used. The courts will never tell you about this option. I was told defense attorneys are not allowed to pursue this as a defense. This remains a tool for the jury and for the jury alone, which is why awareness is more important now than ever.

Consider this: a person sick with a debilitating disease consumes Marijuana to alleviate their anguish. They obtain this through a dispensary licensed by the state where they live. This may be lawful in that state, but it is still a violation of federal law. Federal law enforcement could, if they choose, make an arrest, and the person could be charged with a federal crime. If a jury decided to acquit this person, they would be ignoring federal law and engaging in jury nullification. Should the jury do as they are instructed by the judge and follow the law and convict this disease-stricken person? Or should they do what they know is the right thing? It would seem as if those who cast aside jury nullification so cavalierly haven’t really thought through the long-term ramifications. With the overturning of Roe V Wade (the Democrat’s holy grail), is there a possibility jury nullification will be used to stop the prosecution of women who cross state lines to obtain an abortion? What about the 2nd Amendment? If the 2nd Amendment protects the other amendments, what protects it? Perhaps jury nullification.

This opinion blog aims to get you, the citizen, to start thinking while becoming informed about this tool at your disposal. The second point highlights that jury nullification is not a right or left issue. It is an American issue that hopefully will never be needed by either side but is available as a last-ditch protection.

We should remember that laws are what men and women create them to be. They are not the gospel and should not be treated as such. Laws many times are simply a reflection of those who created them. I think most people would agree that some politicians can become corruptible, yet somehow the laws created by those same politicians are supposed to be above reproach. This type of thinking doesn’t make much sense. I’m not advocating this be used haphazardly or on a whim. But the limited use of jury nullification remains vital to a free society.

Before you scoff at this blog while sipping your favorite Johnny Depp mega-pint of wine, thank a jury nullifier. Remember, jury nullification played an essential role in saving many Americans from the unjust hand of the corrupted slaveholders of the past. It may well be used to protect you in the future.