“In his 1998 book “Jury Nullification: The Evolution of a Doctrine,” Clay S. Conrad defines “jury nullification” this way: “Jurors in criminal trials have the right to refuse to convict if they believe that a conviction would be in some way unjust.”
The doctrine of jury nullification rests on two truths about the American criminal justice system: (1) Jurors can never be punished for the verdict they return, and (2) Defendants cannot be retried once a jury has found them not guilty, regardless of the jury’s reasoning…
This may sound radical, perhaps even subversive, but jury nullification serves as an important safeguard against unjust laws, as well as against the unfair application of well‐intended laws. It’s also steeped in American and British legal tradition.
The first case of jury nullification in British law came in the trial of William Mead and William Penn, the latter of whom would go on to found the province of Pennsylvania. In 1670, the two men were charged in England with unlawful assembly, a law aimed at preventing religions not recognized by the Crown from worshipping. Both almost certainly broke the law, and the judge demanded a guilty verdict. But the jury refused, on the grounds that the law itself was unjust. After repeated refusals, the judge ordered the jury imprisoned. England’s highest court eventually ordered the jurors released, establishing into common law the independence and integrity of juries in criminal cases.
Here in America, the Founding Fathers understood the importance of allowing juries to determine not just the guilt or innocence of the man on trial, but the justice and fairness of the law he’s charged with breaking. John Adams said of jury nullification, “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.” John Jay, the first chief justice of the Supreme Court, said “The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.””
See cato.org/commentary/jus…
—
A biblical precedent for jury nullification can be found in 1 Samuel 14. In that passage, the Israelite militia cancels out Saul’s unjust decree that Jonathan must die for violating an arbitrary law he knew nothing about. This is an example of the biblical, covenantal principle of nullification. Nullification is rooted partially in the principle that legitimate government requires the consent of the governed, but especially in the principle that there is a higher law than the law of the state — namely, the law of God. When civil laws conflict with divine law, lesser magistrates and (in some cases) citizens can act to nullify those laws. Nullification is closely related to the doctrine of interposition.
In 1 Samuel 14, the militia members acts as quasi-magistrates, interposing themselves between Saul (the accuser) and Jonathan (the accused). They also act as jury, nullifying Saul’s unjust law as Jonathan is on trial. Juries not only stand in judgment of the facts of the case (did the accused violate the law?), they stand in judgment of the law itself (is this a just or unjust law?).
TPC Pastor's Page 