I’ve been reading a lot about jury nullification, and I get that jurors have the power to acquit someone even if the law technically says they’re guilty. But what I don’t get is—why is this something that exists, yet courts don’t allow it to be talked about during a trial?
If it’s a legitimate part of the legal system, why is it treated like a secret? Would a juror get in trouble for mentioning it during deliberations? And what would happen if someone brought it up during jury selection?
I’m just curious how this all works in practice. If jurors can ultimately do whatever they want, what stops them from using nullification all the time?
You started with:
And now you’ve added a check against a corrupt executive. 2/3 of the way there.
There are well established system with which to check both the executive and the judicial branches, yet you have now acknowledged the jury serves as an additional check on both.
Actually, no. The “voting populace” is not the legislature. The legislature writes the laws.
You’ve acknowledged the possibility of corruption in the courts; you’ve acknowledged the possibility of corruption in the executive branch. Despite there being clear checks and balances on both branches, you’ve acknowledged that the jury also serves a role against these corruptions.
I’m going to ask again, though: What is the constitutional basis for the jury’s check on the judicial branch and the executive branch? What is the constitutional basis for any of the jury’s powers?
What constitutional basis is there for your claim that the jury must support the legislature?
Ok. Then let’s not fuck around with hypotheticals, and go straight to the “Fugitive Slave Act of 1850”.
A law enforcement agent in a northern, free state, who failed to arrest an escaped slave, faced 6 months imprisonment and a $38,000 fine (in 2025 dollars)
Obviously, this law was unjust. While it was on the books, we lived in a “broken society”.
You’re a northern juror. The accused is a cop who, you come to believe has not only failed to arrest an escaped slave, but went on to assist them in fleeing to Canada.
Do you stand by your assertion that you, the juror are “supposed to enforce unjust laws”?
The other day, I took a walk around my block, and I swear, every dog in the neighborhood picked that day to shit near the sidewalk. I didn’t actually see any shit, but I smelled hidden shit in front of the Jenkin’s place, at the corner store. I stopped to tie my shoe in front of the Smith’s home, and it was overpowering. One of those damn dogs even broke into my breezeway and shat somewhere that I still haven’t found. It wasn’t until I took off my shoes and went in the house that I stopped smelling shit.
Too subtle?
These discussions end up at the legislative branch, because you’ve accepted the other major roles of the juror. They are a check on judicial power over the accused. They are a check on executive power over the accused. The constitution does not explicitly provide these judicial and executive powers over the accused to the juror, nor does it explicitly deny them.
The constitution does not explicitly provide legislative powers over the accused to the juror, nor does it explicitly deny them. I asked above for the “constitutional basis” for the distinction between the jury’s executive, judicial, and legislative functions: There is none. There is no constitutional justification for the distinctions you are making here.
The juror is allowed to determine that the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 is the product of a corrupt legislature, and refuse to enforce it against the accused.
The juror is allowed to determine that the legislature failed to consider the accused’s specific circumstances when it was creating a law, and refuse to enforce that unjust law against the accused. This is a power that the jury possesses.