Jury nullification

503:

who, with reformist zeal, wished to express disapproval of the same law. Moreover, a jury could decide that although the law pointed to a conviction, the jury would simply refuse to apply the law to an accused for whom it had sympathy. Alternatively, a jury who feels antipathy towards an accused might convict despite a law which points to acquittal. To give a harsh, but I think telling example, a jury fueled by the passions of racism could be told that they need not apply the law against murder to a white man who had killed a black man. Such a possibility need only be stated to reveal the potentially frightening implications of Mr. Manning's assertions.... It is no doubt true that juries have a de facto power to disregard the law as stated to the jury by the judge. We cannot enter the jury room. The jury is never called upon to explain the reasons which lie behind a verdict. It may even be true that in some limited circumstances the private decision of a jury to refuse to apply the law will constitute, in the words of a Law Reform Commission of Canada working paper, "the citizen's ultimate protection against oppressive laws and the oppressive enforcement of the law" (Law Reform Commission of Canada, Working Paper 27, The Jury in Criminal Trials (1980)). But recognizing this reality is a far cry from suggesting that counsel may encourage a jury to ignore a law they do not support or to tell a jury that it has a right to do so.

600:

jury's verdict, he told them that "you have been absolutely regardless of your oath. These men have pleaded guilty, and the evidence is of the clearest possible nature. You are none of you fit to serve on a Jury, but you will remain here until the end of the Sessions". The foreman, George Lathan, considered that a form of punishment for the jury, as the jurors were not going to be permitted to serve on any more juries but were nonetheless required to keep attending court or face contempt proceedings, which Lathan considered a tacit form of imprisonment. Officials in the Lord Chancellor's Office noted that while the judge's conduct "was ill-judged and arbitrary, he did not, so far as I can see, do any act which would justify the Lord Chancellor in removing him from the Bench". Home Office officials wrote to the judge, advising him that his actions "would be impossible for the Home Secretary to defend as constitutional or right", and after several days, the jurors were relieved of their duties. Home Office minutes suggest they did not think that kind of informal punishment of jurors who had returned the "wrong" verdict to be unheard of.

648:. The judge told the jury that there was 'no defence in law' for the protestors' actions, which according to the prosecutor had caused 'significant damage' to the building, but the activists were acquitted. In 2023, Insulate Britain members Giovanna Lewis and Amy Pritchard were jailed for seven weeks after defying the judge's ban on informing the jury of the reasons for their actions. In charging them with contempt, the judge referred to an earlier case where another environmental activist was sentenced to eight weeks in prison for the same reason. Following juries acquitting activists, dozens of people have been threatened with arrest for displaying signs that remind jurors of their right to make decisions based on conscience. In 2024, a motion brought by government lawyers to prosecute the activist Trudi Warner for holding a placard stating the right to jury nullification was thrown out by a High Court judge on the basis that there was a well-established principle in law of jury equity and Warner had not broken any law. Warner's placard had directly referenced the wording on the plaque on the outside of the Old Bailey. 319:

intruders', whom the jury might here ignore in reaching a verdict, was described by an enraged judge as 'damnable, blasphemous heresy'. This view was not shared by the jury, which, after three days' hearing, acquitted Lilburne—who had defended himself as skillfully as any lawyer could have done—to the great horror of the Judges and the chagrin of the majority of the Council of State. The Judges were so astonished at the verdict of the jury that they had to repeat their question before they would believe their ears, but the public which crowded the judgment hall, on the announcement of the verdict, broke out into cheers so loud and long as, according to the unanimous testimony of contemporary reporters, had never before been heard in the Guildhall. The cheering and waving of caps continued for over half an hour, while the Judges sat, turning white and red in turns, and spread thence to the masses in London and the suburbs. At night bonfires were lighted, and even during the following days the event was the occasion of joyful demonstrations.

393:. As the defendant had undoubtedly killed the Earl, the law, as it then stood, required the jury merely to look at the facts and to pass a verdict of "proven" or "not proven", depending on whether it believed that the facts proved the defendant had killed the Earl. If the jury brought in a "proven" verdict, that would lead to Carnegie's hanging though he had not intended any harm to the Earl. To avert that injustice, the jury decided to assert what it believed to be its "ancient right" to judge the whole case, not just the facts, and rendered the verdict of "not guilty". Over time, juries have tended to favour the "not guilty" verdict over "not proven" and so the interpretation has changed. The "not guilty" verdict has become the normal verdict when a jury is convinced of innocence, and the "not proven" verdict is used only if the jury is not certain of innocence or guilt. 637:, "indicated that the jury should convict him", and had ruled that "the public interest is what the government of the day says it is". The jury acquitted him instead, much to the consternation of the government. In 2001, two people were charged with conspiracy to cause criminal damage to a Trident submarine in a Barrow-in-Furness shipyard. Though the two admitted their intention to trash the submarine, the two said they were planning to do so due to nuclear bombs being immoral and illegal. The judge told the juries that such ideals were not a defence against the charge. The jury brought a verdict of not guilty on these two anti-nuclear protesters. 123:", whose role it is to determine the veracity of the evidence presented, the weight accorded to the evidence, to apply that evidence to the law as explained by the judge, and to reach a verdict; but not to question the law itself. Similarly, juries are routinely cautioned by courts and some attorneys not to allow sympathy for a party or other affected persons to compromise the fair and dispassionate evaluation of evidence. These instructions are criticized by advocates of jury nullification. Some commonly cited historical examples of jury nullification involve jurors refusing to convict persons accused of violating the 891:

New Hampshire Supreme Court effectively nullified the law and held that the wording of the statute does not allow defense attorneys to tell juries they can nullify a law. The Maryland State Constitution, Declaration of Rights, states that "in the trial of all criminal cases, the Jury shall be the Judges of Law, as well as of fact, except that the Court may pass upon the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction." Nevertheless, the Maryland Courts jury service brochure states that "it is your duty to accept what the judge is saying about the law, and how it is to be applied to the case."

542: 220: 860: 111: 903: 310:'s regime. Lilburne had been charged with seditious libel for the publication of articles critical of the government; the jury were instructed to give a verdict only on whether the text was published, and to leave the issue of libel to the judge, while Lilburne argued the jury should give a general verdict and should judge whether the law's restraint on speech against the government was just. The theoretician and politician 778:, the US Supreme Court held 5-4 that a trial judge has no responsibility to inform the jury of the right to nullify laws. That decision, often cited, has led to a common practice by US judges to penalize anyone who attempts to present a nullification argument to jurors and to declare a mistrial if such argument has been presented to them. In some states, jurors are likely to be struck from the panel during 560:, discharged the writ, released them, called the power to punish a jury "absurd" and forbade judges from punishing jurors for returning a verdict the judge disagreed with. That series of events is considered a significant milestone in the history of jury nullification. The "courage and endurance" of the jury is celebrated in a plaque displayed in the Central Criminal Court (the 538:

him on the charge of disturbing the peace and acquitted Mead of all charges. The jury was then subsequently kept for three days without "meat, drink, fire and tobacco" to force it to bring in a guilty verdict. When it failed to do so, the judge ended the trial. As punishment, the judge ordered the jurors imprisoned until they paid a fine to the court.

511:, 2006 SCC 47, which confirmed that juries in Canada have the power to refuse to apply the law when their consciences require that they do so. The decision stated that "juries are not entitled as a matter of right to refuse to apply the law—but they do have the power to do so when their consciences permit of no other course". 839:

whether you agree with it or not. It is not for you to determine whether the law is just or whether the law is unjust. That cannot be your task. There is no such thing as valid jury nullification. You would violate your oath and the law if you willfully brought a verdict contrary to the law given to you in this case." The

838:

ruled that jurors can be removed if there is evidence that they intend to nullify the law. The Supreme Court has not recently confronted the issue of jury nullification. In 2017, a jury was instructed: "You cannot substitute your sense of justice, whatever that means, for your duty to follow the law,

755:

In the 21st century, many discussions of jury nullification center on drug laws, which some consider unjust in principle or because they are seen to discriminate against certain groups. A jury nullification advocacy group estimates that 3–4% of all jury trials involve nullification, and a recent rise

722:

was a key supporter of the law as expressed in his famous "Seventh of March" speech. He wanted high-profile convictions, but the jury nullifications ruined his presidential aspirations and his last-ditch efforts to find a compromise between North and South. Webster led the prosecution when defendants

599:

civil servants suspected the difference between the pleas could be explained by the difference between the boys' admitting that they had caused the fire and their denial that they had done so maliciously. The trial judge did not consider that possibility or was not satisfied with it. On receiving the

589:

In opposition to this, what is contended for? – That the law shall be, in every particular cause, what any twelve men, who shall happen to be the jury, shall be inclined to think; liable to no review, and subject to no control, under all the prejudices of the popular cry of the day, and under all the

578:

So the jury who usurp the judicature of law, though they happen to be right, are themselves wrong, because they are right by chance only, and have not taken the constitutional way of deciding the question. It is the duty of the Judge, in all cases of general justice, to tell the jury how to do right,

502:

The contrary principle contended for by Mr. Manning, that a jury may be encouraged to ignore a law it does not like, could lead to gross inequities. One accused could be convicted by a jury who supported the existing law, while another person indicted for the same offence could be acquitted by a jury

890:

In 2002, South Dakota voters rejected by a 78% margin a state constitutional amendment to permit criminal defendants to argue for jury nullification. On June 18, 2012, New Hampshire passed a law explicitly allowing defense attorneys to inform juries about jury nullification. On October 24, 2014, the

537:

sermon and disturbing the peace but four jurors, led by Edward Bushell, refused to find them guilty. Instead of dismissing the jury, the judge sent them back for further deliberations. Despite the judge demanding a guilty verdict, the jury now unanimously found Penn guilty of preaching but acquitted

269:

No free man shall be captured, and or imprisoned, or disseised of his freehold, and or of his liberties, or of his free customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or in any way destroyed, nor will we proceed against him by force or proceed against him by arms, but by the lawful judgment of his peers, or by

173:

and integrity. The argument has been raised that prosecutors are not allowed to seek jury nullification, and therefore defendants should not be allowed to seek it either; however, for a prosecutor to nullify a law in this context would require negating the presumption of innocence. For this reason,

594:

A 2016 study exploring the history of juror punishment in England and Wales after Bushel's Case found no clear examples of jurors being punished solely for returning the "wrong" verdict. The closest that a jury came to that was in 1917, when a jury acquitted two teenage boys of arson. The boys had

396:

The standard jury trial practice in the United States during the Founding Era and for several decades afterward was to argue all issues of law in the presence of the jury so that it heard the same arguments as the bench in reaching its rulings on motions. That is evidenced by such decisions as the

407:

to exclude evidence on which it was felt the jury should not hear the argument because it would be informed of the evidence to be excluded. Later, that was expanded to include all legal argument and so that today, the earlier practice of arguing law before the jury has been largely forgotten, and

273:

For a trivial offence, a free man shall be fined only in proportion to the degree of his offence, and for a serious offence correspondingly, but not so heavily as to deprive him of his livelihood. In the same way, a merchant shall be spared his merchandise, and a husbandman the implements of his

161:

Some fear that nullification could be used to permit violence against socially unpopular factions. They point to the danger that a jury may choose to convict a defendant who has not broken the letter of the law. However, judges retain the rights both to decide sentences and to disregard juries'

318:

His contention that the constitution of the Court was contrary to the fundamental laws of the country was unheeded, and his claim that the jury was legally entitled to judge not only as to matters of fact but also as to the application of the law itself, as the Judges represented only 'Norman

701:

gave the jury two instructions. He first instructed the jury that a conviction was its only option under the law. He then instructed them that they could apply the unwritten law of the "fair fight" and acquit. Hickok was acquitted; the verdict was not popular with the public. There have been

403:, which held, "The defense can argue law to the jury before the court gives instructions." Later, judges began to demand the parties submit motions in writing, often before the jury was empaneled, to be argued and decided without the jury being present. The transition began with motions 97:

effect of invalidating the law. Such a pattern may indicate public opposition to an unwanted legislative enactment. It may also happen that a jury convicts a defendant even if no law was broken, although such a conviction may be overturned on appeal. Nullification can also occur in

294:. In addition, the writ of attaint allowed a judge to retry the case in front of a second jury when the judge believed the first jury returned a "false verdict". If the second jury returned a different verdict, that verdict was imposed, and the first jury was imprisoned or fined. 118:

In the past, it was feared that a single judge or panel of government officials might be unduly influenced to follow established legal practice, even when that practice had drifted from its origins. In most modern Western legal systems, judges often instruct juries to act only as

2385:"... the court can also attempt to prevent such an occurrence of juror nullification by (1) informing prospective jurors at the outset that jurors have no authority to disregard the law and (2) obtaining their assurance that they will not do so if chosen to serve on the jury." 666:, when colonial juries frequently exercised their nullification power, principally in maritime cases and cases implicating free speech. Jury nullification became so common that many British prosecutors gave up trying maritime cases since conviction seemed hopeless. Before the 582:

To be free is to live under a government by law.... Miserable is the condition of individuals, dangerous is the condition of the State, if there is no certain law, or, which is the same thing, no certain administration of law, to protect individuals, or to guard the State.

297:

That history is marked by a number of notable exceptions, several of which claim rights commonly recognized as fundamental in modern democratic societies, such as freedom of speech and of the press, and freedom of religious practice. In 1554, a jury acquitted Sir

590:

bias of interest in this town, where thousands, more or less, are concerned in the publication of newspapers, paragraphs, and pamphlets. Under such an administration of law, no man could tell, no counsel could advise, whether a paper was or was not punishable .

323:

In 1653, Lilburne was on trial again and asked the jury to acquit him if it found the death penalty "unconscionably severe" in proportion to the crime he had committed. The jury found Lilburne "not guilty of any crime worthy of death". In 1670, a

256:

power of nullification. By the 12th century, common law courts in England began using juries for more than administrative duties. Juries were composed primarily of "laymen" from the local community and provided a somewhat efficient means of

629:. The prosecution in the case demanded that the jury convict Ponting, as he had clearly contravened the Act by leaking official information about the sinking of the Belgrano during the Falklands War. His main defence was that it was in the 162:

guilty verdicts, acting as a check against malicious juries. Jury nullification may also occur in civil suits, in which the verdict is generally a finding of liability or lack of liability (rather than a finding of guilty or not guilty).

174:

prosecutorial nullification is typically defined as declining to prosecute. Nevertheless, there is little doubt as to the ability of a jury to nullify the law. Today, there are several issues raised by jury nullification, such as:

1224: 702:

contemporary instances of activists being arrested for informing jurists of their right of jury nullification in front of court houses, with subsequent rulings that arresting people for this activity is unconstitutional.

63:

has misapplied the law in the defendant's case, that the punishment for breaking the law is too harsh, or general frustrations with the criminal justice system. Some juries have also refused to convict due to their own

473:

discussed jury nullification and indicated that it is a duty of the presiding justice to try to prevent it from occurring. Perhaps the most famous cases of jury nullification in Canada were the various trials of

134:

Jury nullification is the source of much debate. Some maintain that it is an important safeguard of last resort against wrongful imprisonment and government tyranny. Some view it as a violation of the right to a

151:

nullification of unjust law: "will well and truly try and a true deliverance make between the United States and the defendant at the bar, and a true verdict render according to the evidence, so help God".

2876: 727:

in 1851 from Boston officials who intended to return Minkins to his owner. The juries convicted none of the men. Webster tried to enforce a law that was extremely unpopular in the North, and his

102:; unlike in criminal trials, if the jury renders a not liable verdict that is clearly at odds with the evidence, the judge can issue a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or order a new trial. 1125:

Kennedy, Randall. "Racial Conduct by Jurors and Judges: The Problem of the Tainted Conviction", pp. 277–282, and "Black Power in the Jury Box?", pp. 295–310, Race, Crime and the Law (1997).

812: 801:

1002 (4th Cir.1969), the Court affirmed the concept of jury nullification, but upheld the power of a court to refuse to permit an instruction to the jury to this effect. In 1972, in

91:

pertains only to the particular case before it; however, if a pattern of acquittals develops in response to repeated attempts to prosecute a particular offence, this can have the

2473: 2516: 1985: 463:, it lacks the finality found in the United States. However, the Crown cannot appeal on grounds of an unreasonable acquittal although it can appeal on errors of law. In 2067: 1486: 1049: 147:. In the United States, some view the requirement that jurors take an oath to be unlawful in itself, while still others view the oath's reference to "deliverance" to 68:

in favor of the defendant. Such verdicts are possible because a jury has an absolute right to return any verdict it chooses. Nullification is not an official part of

1599:

Stettinius v. United States, Federal Case No. 13,387 (C.Ct. D.C. 1839), 22 Federal Cases 1322, 1333 quoting United States v. Fenwick, Federal Case No. 15,086 (1836).

274:

husbandry, if they fall upon the mercy of a royal court. None of these fines shall be imposed except by the assessment on oath of reputable men of the neighbourhood.

679: 1453: 2425: 2127: 2100: 683: 302:

but was severely punished by the court. Almost a century later, in 1649, in the first known attempt to argue for jury nullification, a jury likewise acquitted

278:

Largely, the earliest juries returned verdicts in accordance with the wishes of the judge or the Crown. This was achieved either by "packing the jury" or by "

2366: 2042:"BREAKING: HIGH NOON AT CROWN COURT AS 24 PEOPLE INCLUDING LAWYERS, MEDICS AND QUAKERS DEFY JUDGE WHO JAILED DEFENDANTS FOR SPEAKING ABOUT THEIR MOTIVATIONS" 1928: 835: 2580: 827: 1209: 2597: 2228: 2176: 2633: 390: 2606: 1959: 482:. Repeated attempts at prosecuting Morgentaler resulted in acquittals at jury trials in the 1970s and the 1980s. In the 1988 Supreme Court case, 143:

for instructing a jury against nullification, view a jury as a body charged with judging both law and fact. Some view it as a violation of the

1879: 347: 2018: 1644: 2477: 2195: 127:

by assisting runaway slaves or being fugitive slaves themselves, and refusal of American colonial juries to convict a defendant under

1078: 1717: 2539: 1698: 1536: 1092: 760:

is seen by some as being indirect evidence that juries have begun to consider the validity or the fairness of the laws themselves.

2311: 823:

power of a jury to nullify the law but upheld the denial of the defense's chance to instruct the jury about the power to nullify.

718:, it had been passed to mollify Southern slaveowners, who were otherwise threatening to secede from the Union. Secretary of State 488:, 1988 SCR 30, a nullification was appealed all the way to the country's highest court, which struck down the law in question. In 2921: 2835: 1680: 1664: 1416: 943: 657: 1433: 2524: 840: 1766: 1734:

Simon Stern, "Between Local Knowledge and National Politics: Debating Rationales for Jury Nullification after Bushell's Case"

1365: 1345: 1313: 1250: 1032: 2404: 1824: 1492: 362:. Juries continued, even in non-criminal cases, to act in defiance of the Crown. In 1763 and 1765, juries awarded £4,000 to 2153: 1281: 1057: 211:

to expose the jury to information that would otherwise be inadmissible, hoping that evidence will trigger a nullification.

261:

with the benefit of supplying legitimacy. The general power of juries to decide on verdicts was recognised in the English

2916: 381:

In Scotland, jury nullification had the profound effect of introducing the three-verdict system including the option of "

139:, which undermines the law; whereas others, such as those members of Congress who voted to impeach Supreme Court Justice 1462: 1110: 2419: 1337: 843:

upheld the first three sentences of the jury's instruction and overruled the remainder but deemed that instruction a

1609:

Berkowitz, Roger (2011). "Assassinating Justly: Reflections on Justice and Revenge in the Osama Bin Laden Killing".

933: 675: 579:

though they have it in their power to do wrong, which is a matter entirely between God and their own consciences.

2944: 923: 788: 557: 337: 2253: 1784:"Before the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015: juror punishment in nineteenth- and twentieth-century England" 2674: 2647: 2277: 1736: 1305: 2442: 1197: 1025:

The Place of the Explained Verdict in the English Criminal Justice System: Decision-making and Criminal Trials

2926: 2591: 2202: 2173: 426: 241: 2500: 784:

if they do not agree to accept as correct the rulings and instructions of the law as provided by the judge.

2041: 678:, juries often nullified alcohol control laws. That resistance may have contributed to the adoption of the 566: 374:

against the Crown's messengers. In both cases, messengers had been sent by Lord Halifax to seize allegedly-

88: 2965: 2911: 2906: 2881: 1863:

It was hailed as a victory for the jury system. The judge had indicated that the jury should convict him.

871: 399: 1377: 787:

In later rulings the courts continued to prohibit informing juries about jury nullification. In a 1969,

803: 728: 663: 432: 59:

has broken the law. The jury's reasons may include the belief that the law itself is unjust, that the

2896: 2845: 1449: 739:

White defendants accused of crimes against black people and other minorities were often acquitted by

626: 20: 644:

were tried for causing criminal damage to the British headquarters of the multinational oil company

2886: 694: 621:, leaked two government documents concerning the sinking of the cruiser to a Member of Parliament ( 448: 1139: 2474:"NULLIFICATION AT WORK? A GLIMPSE FROM THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR STATE COURTS STUDY OF HUNG JURIES" 1574: 530: 470: 2346: 2361: 1898: 968: 770: 479: 459:

Although extremely rare, jury nullification occurs in Canada. As the prosecution has powers to

1020: 541: 181:

Whether a judge may remove jurors "for cause" when they refuse to apply the law as instructed.

2703: 2370: 1418:

Verdicts of Conscience: Nullification and Necessity as Jury Responses to Crimes of Conscience

553: 495: 299: 230: 2614: 2192: 447:. Although Tehlirian's lawyers did not contest that their client had killed Talat, the jury 2901: 2830: 2820: 775: 641: 612: 386: 2443:"Juries Can Acquit the Guilty, 9th Circuit Says, but 'There Is No Right to Nullification'" 2019:"Breaking: Dozens more people risk prison for literally upholding the law – Just Stop Oil" 1645:"Prosecutor in Yanikian Case Says He 'Regrets' Not Bringing 'Indictment Against Genocide'" 286:

the jury so as to return the desired verdict. That was a common tactic in cases involving

8: 2891: 2229:"He Was Arrested for Promoting Jury Nullification. A Federal Court Says That Was Illegal" 1714: 928: 2322: 1946: 1695: 1533: 1089: 460: 2825: 2797: 2782: 2667: 2570:, an activist group that encourages educating potential jurors about jury nullification 1803: 1626: 1298:

From Social Justice to Criminal Justice: Poverty and the Administration of Criminal Law

1135: 917: 743:, especially in the South, even in the face of irrefutable evidence. An example is the 715: 711: 671: 667: 436: 258: 124: 69: 2373: 1661: 72:

but is the logical consequence of two rules governing the systems in which it exists:

2740: 2708: 2294: 2273: 2245:'This Flagitious Offense': Daniel Webster and the Shadrach Rescue Cases, 1851-1852", 2075: 1993: 1924: 1807: 1762: 1630: 1361: 1341: 1333: 1309: 1301: 1165: 1028: 938: 645: 595:

confessed at their pre-trial hearing but entered pleas of not guilty at their trial.

484: 475: 355: 336:. The judge held the jury in contempt of court, which was ruled inappropriate by the 333: 245: 237: 219: 1300:, Contributor William C. Heffernan, John Kleinig, (Oxford University Press US, 2000) 830:

upheld a jury instruction: "There is no such thing as valid jury nullification." In

2840: 2792: 2745: 2620: 2068:"Judge throws out case against UK climate activist who held sign on jurors' rights" 1795: 1618: 993: 740: 724: 690: 521: 342: 311: 225: 1821: 1258: 382: 2815: 2601: 2429: 2408: 2398: 2257: 2199: 2180: 1828: 1740: 1721: 1702: 1668: 1540: 1285: 1114: 1096: 698: 634: 630: 574:, sitting as a judge in the case, disparaged the practice of jury nullification: 359: 307: 279: 178:

Whether juries can or should be instructed or informed of their power to nullify.

170: 144: 80: 1846: 1278: 552:

Four jurors refused to pay the fine, and after several months, Bushell sought a

2807: 2765: 2101:"Legal action cannot be taken against protester for contempt, High Court rules" 1561:

Cromwell and Communism: Socialism and Democracy in the Great English Revolution

1556: 844: 793: 744: 719: 571: 409: 208: 120: 32: 640:

In 2021, six activists associated with the environmental protest organisation

207:

will attempt to get on a jury in order to nullify the law. Some lawyers use a

2959: 2860: 2777: 2660: 2639: 2128:"Judge dismisses case against activist who held up placard on jurors' rights" 2079: 1997: 1875: 1622: 948: 618: 604: 465: 351: 303: 204: 2648:

Idiot Legal Arguments: A Casebook for Dealing with Extremist Legal Arguments

519:

By the late 17th century, the court's power to punish juries was removed in

2855: 2750: 2469: 1933: 1903: 1107: 526: 490: 440: 329: 140: 2298: 710:

Juries across the North acquitted defendants who had clearly breached the

110: 2850: 2787: 622: 596: 367: 363: 262: 128: 99: 2652: 2154:"Jury Nullification as a Tool to Balance the Demands of Law and Justice" 1986:"Insulate Britain activist jailed for eight weeks for contempt of court" 1929:

Jury acquits Extinction Rebellion protesters despite 'no defence in law'

859: 662:

In the United States, jury nullification first appeared just before the

2725: 2718: 2713: 2698: 1947:

Extinction Rebellion: Jury acquits protesters despite judge's direction

1799: 908: 608: 561: 546: 325: 234: 169:

issue involved in jury nullification is the tension between democratic

136: 60: 2250: 1681:

Judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada. R. v. Morgentaler 1988-01-28

2770: 2755: 2735: 2730: 1579:

A Collection of the State Papers of John Thurloe, Volume 1, 1638–1653

780: 757: 194: 184:

Whether a judge may punish a juror for practicing jury nullification.

65: 56: 52: 2625: 1783: 1733: 902: 731:

passed over him again when it chose a presidential nominee in 1852.

478:, who openly operated a private abortion clinic in violation of the 332:

of unlawful assembly for religious practice not associated with the

2630:, history of Bushell's Case and jury nullification in its aftermath 1832: 1438:, vol. 7, Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy, p. 51 813:

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

371: 291: 188: 93: 2517:"New Hampshire Supreme Court Nullifies Jury Nullification Statute" 1696:

Judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada. R. v. Krieger 2006-10-26

1662:

Judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada. R. v. Latimer 2001-01-18

1108:

Clive Ponting and "Troubled history of Official Secrets Act", 1985

1225:"Verdicts of Conscience: Nullification and the Modern Jury Trial" 287: 283: 166: 2293:. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press. p. 178. 1508:

Putting on a Jury Nullification Defense and Getting Away with It

1079:

Trial of the Quaker William Penn (founder of Pennsylvania), 1670

1050:"'Not only a right, but a duty': A history of perverse verdicts" 199:

to exclude evidence, should be made in the presence of the jury.

1553:

Sozialismus und Demokratie in der grossen englischen Revolution

1382:

Deliberations: Law, news and thoughts on juries and jury trials

625:) and was subsequently charged with breaching section 2 of the 534: 444: 412:

or overturn verdicts if legal arguments are made to the jury.

1880:"Clodagh Hartley, chequebooks ... and a Clive Ponting moment" 689:

In a well-known example of jury nullification, at the end of

375: 48: 1593: 670:, juries sometimes refused to convict for violations of the 443:, who was considered the main architect of the genocide, in 252:

The early history of juries supports the recognition of the

2683: 1761:. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. pp. 68–72. 1212:

from the original on May 14, 2021 – via ValpoScholar.

1196:

Conaway, Teresa L.; Mutz, Carol L.; Ross, Joann M. (2004).

808: 798: 76:

Jurors cannot be punished for passing an incorrect verdict.

44: 2291:

Race in the jury box: affirmative action in jury selection

1018: 248:, was acquitted by a jury despite hostility of the judges. 2193:"Legal Culture, Wild Bill Hickok and the Gunslinger Myth" 1850: 1822:"Clive Ponting case: Where is the investigators' report?" 1290: 1198:"Jury Nullification: A Selective, Annotated Bibliography" 1140:"Jury Nullification: The Top Secret Constitutional Right" 2565: 2586:

Socialism and Democracy in the Great English Revolution

2312:"Doing Your Best as a Trial Juror: Surviving Voir Dire" 633:

that the information be made available. The judge, Sir

1949:, BBC News, 23 April 2021. Retrieved on 16 August 2021 1505: 898: 533:

had been arrested in 1670 for illegally preaching a

158:, 556 F.2d 71 (D.C. Cir. 1977). 79:

In many jurisdictions, a defendant who is acquitted

2389:, 141 Cal.App.4th 408 (July 14, 2006. No. C047785). 1960:"Insulate Britain activists jailed for seven weeks" 1242: 385:", which remains in Scotland to this day. In 1728, 2608:Jury Nullification: Why you should know what it is 2467: 2379: 570:(1784), 4 Dougl. 73, 99 E.R. 774, at p. 824, 265:of 1215, which put into words existing practices: 2413: 1674: 2957: 1691: 1689: 994:"The Cheshire Cab Driver: Reasons of Conscience" 2270:Jury Nullification, The Evolution of a Doctrine 1324: 1322: 1195: 2392: 1522:Using Theories and Themes to Acquit the Guilty 346:. In 1681, a grand jury refused to indict the 282:". Juries were packed by hand-selecting or by 2668: 2289:Fukurai, Hiroshi, and Richard Krooth (2003). 1937:, 23 April 2021. Retrieved on 16 August 2021. 1686: 1655: 1545: 1421:, vol. 69, S. Cal. L. Rev., p. 2039 507:The Supreme Court in 2006 issued a decision, 306:for his part in inciting a rebellion against 2249:Vol. 68, No. 4 (December 1995), pp. 609–625 1750: 1708: 1431: 1319: 1272: 1047: 2502:New Hampshire Adopts Jury Nullification Law 1461:, Boston College Law Review, archived from 1414: 1370: 1360:, (Cornell University Press, 2003), p. 21 1350: 192: 2675: 2661: 2567:FIJA – The Fully Informed Jury Association 1847:"Troubled history of Official Secrets Act" 1581:. London: Fletcher Gyles. pp. 435–445 1491:, American Bar Association, archived from 1222: 1167:Justice Often Served By Jury Nullification 1119: 1101: 1083: 1072: 2682: 1839: 1836:. 18 May 2011. Retrieved on 13 June 2013. 1727: 1608: 415: 2498: 2340: 2272:, Carolina Academic Press, pp. 167–185. 2040:Press, Insulate Britain (May 15, 2023). 1756: 1395: 1183:Jury Nullification as a Defense Strategy 556:. Chief Justice Vaughan, sitting on the 540: 218: 109: 2836:Racial discrimination in jury selection 2538:Tynan, Kirsten C. (September 6, 2021). 2065: 1896: 1874: 1448: 1401:Lars Noah, "Civil Jury Nullification", 1027:. Universal-Publishers. pp. 197–. 944:Jury nullification in the United States 658:Jury nullification in the United States 564:) in London. In a criminal libel case, 214: 87:A jury verdict that is contrary to the 16:Type of jury verdict in criminal trials 2958: 2125: 1781: 1519: 1332:(Yale University Press, 2006), p. 253 1248: 1180: 525:involving a juror on the case against 203:In some cases in the United States, a 2656: 2537: 2039: 1983: 1575:"Slate Papers, 1653: August (5 of 5)" 1572: 1488:The Stealth Juror: Reality or Rarity? 1358:A Culture of Fact: England, 1550–1720 1185:, 2 TEX. F. ON C.L. & C.R. 1, 1-2 1163: 1134: 705: 682:, which repealed Prohibition and the 617:. Three years later a civil servant, 449:(Germany used jury trials until 1924) 2303: 2167: 2151: 1897:Berlins, Marcel (January 22, 2001). 1296:William C. Heffernan, John Kleinig, 854: 514: 1899:"Perverting the course of justice?" 1589:– via British History Online. 1019:Bethel G. A. Erastus-Obilo (2008). 763: 745:trial of Roy Bryant and J. W. Milam 13: 2636:(Satirical defense of jury powers) 2523:. October 24, 2014. Archived from 2066:Laville, Sandra (April 22, 2024). 1984:Gayle, Damien (February 7, 2023). 734: 451:returned a verdict of not guilty. 14: 2977: 2554: 2126:Castro, Bianca (April 22, 2024). 19:For the book by Clay Conrad, see 2499:Tuccille, J.D. (June 29, 2012), 2309: 1378:"Recognising the Activist Juror" 1249:Graves, Dr Frederick D. (2009), 1202:Valparaiso University Law Review 1164:Balko, Radley (August 1, 2005), 934:Judgment notwithstanding verdict 901: 858: 651: 350:. In 1688, a jury acquitted the 2945:Fully Informed Jury Association 2544:Fully Informed Jury Association 2531: 2521:Fully Informed Jury Association 2509: 2492: 2461: 2435: 2354: 2319:Fully Informed Jury Association 2283: 2262: 2235: 2221: 2208: 2186: 2145: 2119: 2093: 2059: 2033: 2011: 1977: 1952: 1940: 1918: 1890: 1868: 1814: 1775: 1637: 1611:Law, Culture and the Humanities 1602: 1566: 1563:, Library of Congress 63-18392. 1527: 1513: 1499: 1479: 1442: 1425: 1415:Schopp, Robert F. (1995–1996), 1408: 1216: 1189: 1174: 1157: 924:Fully Informed Jury Association 789:Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals 774:, written by Associate Justice 750: 1506:Hall Jr., John Wesley (2003), 1435:Comments on Jury Nullification 1432:Bissell, John W. (1997–1998), 1128: 1041: 1012: 986: 961: 461:appeal the resulting acquittal 1: 954: 850: 847:and affirmed the conviction. 427:Assassination of Talaat Pasha 105: 81:cannot be tried a second time 2402:, 417 F 2d 1002, 1006 (1969) 2105:Bradford Telegraph and Argus 1223:Rubenstein, Arie M. (2006). 1048:David Hewitt (May 1, 2018). 1021:"13: The 'Perverse' Verdict" 611:sank the Argentine cruiser, 191:, except perhaps on motions 7: 2634:How to Get Out of Jury Duty 2540:"What About New Hampshire?" 1715:Bushell's Case trial report 1705:. Retrieved April 06, 2014. 1683:. Retrieved April 06, 2014. 1671:. Retrieved April 06, 2014. 1573:Birch, Thomas, ed. (1742). 1539:September 10, 2014, at the 1455:Prosecutorial Nullification 894: 815:issued a ruling similar to 314:wrote of Lilburne's trial: 10: 2982: 2616:Essay on the Trial by Jury 2468:Hannaford-Agor, Paula L.; 2214:O'Connor, Richard (1959). 2198:February 13, 2007, at the 1757:Abramson, Jeffrey (1994). 804:United States v. Dougherty 714:in the 1850s. Part of the 695:manslaughter of Davis Tutt 664:American Revolutionary War 655: 433:Armenian genocide survivor 424: 420: 244:, outside the established 18: 2937: 2869: 2846:Scientific jury selection 2806: 2691: 2644:, William Forsyth. (1875) 2600:January 23, 2011, at the 2179:January 23, 2011, at the 1113:January 15, 2016, at the 723:were accused of rescuing 627:Official Secrets Act 1911 454: 55:even though they think a 21:Jury Nullification (book) 2641:History of Trial by Jury 2582:"Cromwell and Communism" 2575:Articles and other works 2268:Conrad, Clay S. (1998). 1623:10.1177/1743872111418172 1330:The American Jury System 1181:Conrad, Clay S. (1995), 389:accidentally killed the 1284:April 20, 2016, at the 1095:March 24, 2016, at the 832:United States v. Thomas 2870:Specific jurisdictions 2428:July 31, 2010, at the 2362:Sparf v. United States 1747:111 (2002): 1815–1848. 1739:June 24, 2016, at the 1667:July 20, 2011, at the 1328:Randolph N. Jonakait, 1090:Trial of Penn and Mead 969:"What is jury equity?" 771:Sparf v. United States 680:Twenty-first Amendment 592: 549: 505: 416:Specific jurisdictions 370:in separate suits for 321: 276: 249: 193: 155:United States v. Green 115: 2407:June 4, 2016, at the 2247:New England Quarterly 1878:(November 30, 2014). 1720:June 1, 2016, at the 1701:June 9, 2012, at the 1520:Conrad, Clay (1998), 576: 558:Court of Common Pleas 554:writ of habeas corpus 544: 500: 496:Chief Justice Dickson 338:Court of Common Pleas 316: 300:Nicholas Throckmorton 270:the law of the land. 267: 231:Nicholas Throckmorton 222: 113: 83:for the same offense. 2831:Peremptory challenge 2821:Death-qualified jury 2527:on October 30, 2017. 2480:on November 28, 2014 2256:May 9, 2016, at the 1827:May 4, 2016, at the 1495:on November 21, 2008 1261:on December 26, 2009 1060:on September 9, 2019 776:John Marshall Harlan 768:In the 1895 case of 684:Eighteenth Amendment 642:Extinction Rebellion 603:In 1982, during the 408:judges even declare 387:Carnegie of Finhaven 215:Common law precedent 145:oath sworn by jurors 31:, also known in the 2472:(August 26, 2003). 2348:The Washington Post 2328:on October 19, 2017 2205:Tarlton Law Library 2203:University of Texas 1853:. November 18, 1998 1651:. January 29, 2018. 1534:Magna Carta of 1215 1356:Barbara J. Shapiro 1232:Columbia Law Review 929:Josephine Terranova 348:Earl of Shaftesbury 328:refused to convict 114:A 19th-century jury 51:gives a verdict of 2966:Jury nullification 2826:Jury questionnaire 2798:Summary jury trial 2783:Jury sequestration 2761:Jury nullification 2704:Citizens' assembly 2593:Jury Nullification 1800:10.1111/lest.12098 1782:Crosby, K (2016). 1551:Eduard Bernstein, 1000:. October 18, 2016 918:Citizens Rule Book 870:. You can help by 819:that affirmed the 716:Compromise of 1850 712:Fugitive Slave Act 706:Fugitive Slave Act 672:Fugitive Slave Act 668:American Civil War 550: 469:, 2001 SCC 1, the 437:Soghomon Tehlirian 391:Earl of Strathmore 259:dispute resolution 250: 187:Whether all legal 125:Fugitive Slave Act 116: 70:criminal procedure 29:Jury nullification 2953: 2952: 2882:England and Wales 2741:Jury instructions 2686:-related articles 2505:, Reason Magazine 2387:People v. Estrada 2231:. August 5, 2022. 2152:McKnight, Aaron. 1925:Press Association 1820:Martin Rosenbaum 1768:978-0-674-00430-6 1450:Fairfax, Roger A. 1366:978-0-8014-8849-8 1346:978-0-300-12463-7 1314:978-0-19-512985-4 1251:"Fact definition" 1034:978-1-59942-689-1 939:Judicial override 888: 887: 693:'s trial for the 646:Royal Dutch Shell 515:England and Wales 485:R. v. Morgentaler 476:Henry Morgentaler 356:Church of England 334:Church of England 246:Church of England 238:English Dissenter 89:letter of the law 2973: 2841:Strike for cause 2793:Juror misconduct 2746:Specific finding 2692:Primary articles 2677: 2670: 2663: 2654: 2653: 2621:Lysander Spooner 2548: 2547: 2535: 2529: 2528: 2513: 2507: 2506: 2496: 2490: 2489: 2487: 2485: 2476:. Archived from 2470:Hans, Valerie P. 2465: 2459: 2458: 2456: 2454: 2439: 2433: 2421:U.S. v Dougherty 2417: 2411: 2396: 2390: 2383: 2377: 2358: 2352: 2344: 2338: 2337: 2335: 2333: 2327: 2321:. Archived from 2316: 2310:Clay, Conrad J. 2307: 2301: 2287: 2281: 2266: 2260: 2244: 2239: 2233: 2232: 2225: 2219: 2216:Wild Bill Hickok 2212: 2206: 2190: 2184: 2171: 2165: 2164: 2162: 2160: 2149: 2143: 2142: 2140: 2138: 2123: 2117: 2116: 2114: 2112: 2107:. April 22, 2024 2097: 2091: 2090: 2088: 2086: 2063: 2057: 2056: 2054: 2052: 2046:Insulate Britain 2037: 2031: 2030: 2028: 2026: 2015: 2009: 2008: 2006: 2004: 1981: 1975: 1974: 1972: 1970: 1956: 1950: 1944: 1938: 1922: 1916: 1915: 1913: 1911: 1894: 1888: 1887: 1872: 1866: 1865: 1860: 1858: 1843: 1837: 1818: 1812: 1811: 1779: 1773: 1772: 1754: 1748: 1745:Yale Law Journal 1731: 1725: 1712: 1706: 1693: 1684: 1678: 1672: 1659: 1653: 1652: 1641: 1635: 1634: 1606: 1600: 1597: 1591: 1590: 1588: 1586: 1570: 1564: 1549: 1543: 1531: 1525: 1524: 1517: 1511: 1510: 1503: 1497: 1496: 1483: 1477: 1476: 1475: 1473: 1468:on March 9, 2021 1467: 1460: 1446: 1440: 1439: 1429: 1423: 1422: 1412: 1406: 1399: 1393: 1392: 1391: 1389: 1374: 1368: 1354: 1348: 1326: 1317: 1294: 1288: 1276: 1270: 1269: 1268: 1266: 1257:, archived from 1246: 1240: 1239: 1229: 1220: 1214: 1213: 1208:: 410, 428–429. 1193: 1187: 1186: 1178: 1172: 1171: 1161: 1155: 1154: 1144: 1132: 1126: 1123: 1117: 1105: 1099: 1087: 1081: 1076: 1070: 1069: 1067: 1065: 1056:. Archived from 1045: 1039: 1038: 1016: 1010: 1009: 1007: 1005: 990: 984: 983: 981: 979: 965: 911: 906: 905: 883: 880: 862: 855: 764:Judicial opinion 741:all-white juries 725:Shadrach Minkins 691:Wild Bill Hickok 674:. Later, during 614:General Belgrano 312:Eduard Bernstein 280:writs of attaint 198: 157: 41:perverse verdict 2981: 2980: 2976: 2975: 2974: 2972: 2971: 2970: 2956: 2955: 2954: 2949: 2933: 2865: 2816:Change of venue 2802: 2687: 2681: 2602:Wayback Machine 2557: 2552: 2551: 2536: 2532: 2515: 2514: 2510: 2497: 2493: 2483: 2481: 2466: 2462: 2452: 2450: 2449:. June 20, 2017 2441: 2440: 2436: 2430:Wayback Machine 2418: 2414: 2409:Wayback Machine 2397: 2393: 2384: 2380: 2359: 2355: 2345: 2341: 2331: 2329: 2325: 2314: 2308: 2304: 2288: 2284: 2267: 2263: 2258:Wayback Machine 2242: 2241:Gary Collison, 2240: 2236: 2227: 2226: 2222: 2213: 2209: 2200:Wayback Machine 2191: 2187: 2181:Wayback Machine 2172: 2168: 2158: 2156: 2150: 2146: 2136: 2134: 2124: 2120: 2110: 2108: 2099: 2098: 2094: 2084: 2082: 2064: 2060: 2050: 2048: 2038: 2034: 2024: 2022: 2021:. July 17, 2023 2017: 2016: 2012: 2002: 2000: 1982: 1978: 1968: 1966: 1958: 1957: 1953: 1945: 1941: 1923: 1919: 1909: 1907: 1895: 1891: 1873: 1869: 1856: 1854: 1845: 1844: 1840: 1829:Wayback Machine 1819: 1815: 1780: 1776: 1769: 1755: 1751: 1741:Wayback Machine 1732: 1728: 1722:Wayback Machine 1713: 1709: 1703:Wayback Machine 1694: 1687: 1679: 1675: 1669:Wayback Machine 1660: 1656: 1643: 1642: 1638: 1607: 1603: 1598: 1594: 1584: 1582: 1571: 1567: 1559:(1963, NYC) as 1555:(1895); trans. 1550: 1546: 1541:Wayback Machine 1532: 1528: 1518: 1514: 1504: 1500: 1485: 1484: 1480: 1471: 1469: 1465: 1458: 1447: 1443: 1430: 1426: 1413: 1409: 1405:86 (2001): 1601 1403:Iowa Law Review 1400: 1396: 1387: 1385: 1384:, June 12, 2007 1376: 1375: 1371: 1355: 1351: 1327: 1320: 1295: 1291: 1286:Wayback Machine 1277: 1273: 1264: 1262: 1255:Jurisdictionary 1247: 1243: 1227: 1221: 1217: 1194: 1190: 1179: 1175: 1162: 1158: 1142: 1133: 1129: 1124: 1120: 1115:Wayback Machine 1106: 1102: 1097:Wayback Machine 1088: 1084: 1077: 1073: 1063: 1061: 1054:The Justice Gap 1046: 1042: 1035: 1017: 1013: 1003: 1001: 992: 991: 987: 977: 975: 967: 966: 962: 957: 907: 900: 897: 884: 878: 875: 868:needs expansion 853: 766: 753: 737: 735:After Civil War 708: 699:Sempronius Boyd 697:in 1865, Judge 660: 654: 635:Anthony McCowan 631:public interest 517: 457: 439:, assassinated 429: 423: 418: 360:seditious libel 308:Oliver Cromwell 217: 171:self-government 153: 121:finders of fact 108: 24: 17: 12: 11: 5: 2979: 2969: 2968: 2951: 2950: 2948: 2947: 2941: 2939: 2935: 2934: 2932: 2931: 2930: 2929: 2924: 2919: 2917:Jury selection 2914: 2904: 2899: 2894: 2889: 2884: 2879: 2873: 2871: 2867: 2866: 2864: 2863: 2858: 2853: 2848: 2843: 2838: 2833: 2828: 2823: 2818: 2812: 2810: 2808:Jury selection 2804: 2803: 2801: 2800: 2795: 2790: 2785: 2780: 2775: 2774: 2773: 2766:Jury tampering 2763: 2758: 2753: 2748: 2743: 2738: 2733: 2728: 2723: 2722: 2721: 2711: 2709:Coroner's jury 2706: 2701: 2695: 2693: 2689: 2688: 2680: 2679: 2672: 2665: 2657: 2651: 2650: 2645: 2637: 2631: 2627:Bushell's Case 2623: 2612: 2604: 2595:by Doug Linder 2589: 2572: 2571: 2556: 2555:External links 2553: 2550: 2549: 2530: 2508: 2491: 2460: 2434: 2412: 2400:U.S. vs Moylan 2391: 2378: 2353: 2339: 2302: 2282: 2261: 2234: 2220: 2207: 2185: 2166: 2144: 2118: 2092: 2058: 2032: 2010: 1976: 1951: 1939: 1917: 1889: 1876:Preston, Peter 1867: 1838: 1813: 1774: 1767: 1749: 1726: 1707: 1685: 1673: 1654: 1636: 1617:(3): 346–351. 1601: 1592: 1565: 1557:H. J. Stenning 1544: 1526: 1512: 1498: 1478: 1441: 1424: 1407: 1394: 1369: 1349: 1318: 1289: 1271: 1241: 1215: 1188: 1173: 1156: 1127: 1118: 1100: 1082: 1071: 1040: 1033: 1011: 985: 959: 958: 956: 953: 952: 951: 946: 941: 936: 931: 926: 921: 913: 912: 896: 893: 886: 885: 865: 863: 852: 849: 845:harmless error 836:Second Circuit 794:U.S. v. Moylan 765: 762: 752: 749: 736: 733: 720:Daniel Webster 707: 704: 656:Main article: 653: 650: 572:Lord Mansfield 545:Plaque at the 516: 513: 456: 453: 422: 419: 417: 414: 223:Even prior to 216: 213: 209:shadow defense 201: 200: 185: 182: 179: 107: 104: 85: 84: 77: 49:criminal trial 43:, is when the 33:United Kingdom 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2978: 2967: 2964: 2963: 2961: 2946: 2943: 2942: 2940: 2936: 2928: 2925: 2923: 2922:Nullification 2920: 2918: 2915: 2913: 2912:U.S. military 2910: 2909: 2908: 2907:United States 2905: 2903: 2900: 2898: 2895: 2893: 2890: 2888: 2885: 2883: 2880: 2878: 2875: 2874: 2872: 2868: 2862: 2861:Stealth juror 2859: 2857: 2854: 2852: 2849: 2847: 2844: 2842: 2839: 2837: 2834: 2832: 2829: 2827: 2824: 2822: 2819: 2817: 2814: 2813: 2811: 2809: 2805: 2799: 2796: 2794: 2791: 2789: 2786: 2784: 2781: 2779: 2778:Jury research 2776: 2772: 2769: 2768: 2767: 2764: 2762: 2759: 2757: 2754: 2752: 2749: 2747: 2744: 2742: 2739: 2737: 2734: 2732: 2729: 2727: 2724: 2720: 2717: 2716: 2715: 2712: 2710: 2707: 2705: 2702: 2700: 2697: 2696: 2694: 2690: 2685: 2678: 2673: 2671: 2666: 2664: 2659: 2658: 2655: 2649: 2646: 2643: 2642: 2638: 2635: 2632: 2629: 2628: 2624: 2622: 2618: 2617: 2613: 2611: 2609: 2605: 2603: 2599: 2596: 2594: 2590: 2588: 2587: 2583: 2579: 2578: 2577: 2576: 2569: 2568: 2564: 2563: 2562: 2561: 2560:Organizations 2545: 2541: 2534: 2526: 2522: 2518: 2512: 2504: 2503: 2495: 2479: 2475: 2471: 2464: 2448: 2444: 2438: 2432: 2431: 2427: 2423: 2422: 2416: 2410: 2406: 2403: 2401: 2395: 2388: 2382: 2375: 2372: 2368: 2364: 2363: 2357: 2350: 2349: 2343: 2324: 2320: 2313: 2306: 2300: 2296: 2292: 2286: 2279: 2275: 2271: 2265: 2259: 2255: 2252: 2248: 2238: 2230: 2224: 2217: 2211: 2204: 2201: 2197: 2194: 2189: 2182: 2178: 2175: 2170: 2155: 2148: 2133: 2129: 2122: 2106: 2102: 2096: 2081: 2077: 2073: 2069: 2062: 2047: 2043: 2036: 2020: 2014: 1999: 1995: 1991: 1987: 1980: 1965: 1964:openDemocracy 1961: 1955: 1948: 1943: 1936: 1935: 1930: 1926: 1921: 1906: 1905: 1900: 1893: 1885: 1881: 1877: 1871: 1864: 1852: 1848: 1842: 1835: 1834: 1830: 1826: 1823: 1817: 1809: 1805: 1801: 1797: 1793: 1789: 1788:Legal Studies 1785: 1778: 1770: 1764: 1760: 1753: 1746: 1742: 1738: 1735: 1730: 1723: 1719: 1716: 1711: 1704: 1700: 1697: 1692: 1690: 1682: 1677: 1670: 1666: 1663: 1658: 1650: 1646: 1640: 1632: 1628: 1624: 1620: 1616: 1612: 1605: 1596: 1580: 1576: 1569: 1562: 1558: 1554: 1548: 1542: 1538: 1535: 1530: 1523: 1516: 1509: 1502: 1494: 1490: 1489: 1482: 1464: 1457: 1456: 1451: 1445: 1437: 1436: 1428: 1420: 1419: 1411: 1404: 1398: 1383: 1379: 1373: 1367: 1363: 1359: 1353: 1347: 1343: 1339: 1338:0-300-12463-5 1335: 1331: 1325: 1323: 1315: 1311: 1307: 1303: 1299: 1293: 1287: 1283: 1280: 1279:Gaspee Affair 1275: 1260: 1256: 1252: 1245: 1237: 1233: 1226: 1219: 1211: 1207: 1203: 1199: 1192: 1184: 1177: 1169: 1168: 1160: 1152: 1148: 1141: 1137: 1131: 1122: 1116: 1112: 1109: 1104: 1098: 1094: 1091: 1086: 1080: 1075: 1059: 1055: 1051: 1044: 1036: 1030: 1026: 1022: 1015: 999: 995: 989: 974: 970: 964: 960: 950: 949:Ultimate fact 947: 945: 942: 940: 937: 935: 932: 930: 927: 925: 922: 920: 919: 915: 914: 910: 904: 899: 892: 882: 873: 869: 866:This section 864: 861: 857: 856: 848: 846: 842: 841:Ninth Circuit 837: 833: 829: 828:Sixth Circuit 826:In 1988, the 824: 822: 818: 814: 810: 806: 805: 800: 796: 795: 790: 785: 783: 782: 777: 773: 772: 761: 759: 748: 746: 742: 732: 730: 726: 721: 717: 713: 703: 700: 696: 692: 687: 685: 681: 677: 673: 669: 665: 659: 652:United States 649: 647: 643: 638: 636: 632: 628: 624: 620: 619:Clive Ponting 616: 615: 610: 606: 605:Falklands War 601: 598: 591: 587: 584: 580: 575: 573: 569: 568: 567:R. v. Shipley 563: 559: 555: 548: 543: 539: 536: 532: 528: 524: 523: 522:Bushel's Case 512: 510: 509:R. v. Krieger 504: 499: 497: 493: 492: 487: 486: 481: 480:Criminal Code 477: 472: 471:Supreme Court 468: 467: 466:R. v. Latimer 462: 452: 450: 446: 442: 438: 434: 431:In 1921, the 428: 413: 411: 406: 402: 401: 394: 392: 388: 384: 379: 377: 373: 369: 365: 361: 357: 353: 352:Seven Bishops 349: 345: 344: 343:Bushel's Case 339: 335: 331: 327: 320: 315: 313: 309: 305: 304:John Lilburne 301: 295: 293: 289: 285: 281: 275: 271: 266: 264: 260: 255: 247: 243: 242:Nonconformist 239: 236: 232: 228: 227: 226:Bushel's Case 221: 212: 210: 206: 205:stealth juror 197: 196: 190: 186: 183: 180: 177: 176: 175: 172: 168: 163: 159: 156: 150: 146: 142: 138: 132: 130: 126: 122: 112: 103: 101: 96: 95: 90: 82: 78: 75: 74: 73: 71: 67: 62: 58: 54: 50: 46: 42: 38: 34: 30: 26: 22: 2856:Special jury 2760: 2751:Deliberation 2640: 2626: 2615: 2610:by Russ Emal 2607: 2592: 2585: 2581: 2574: 2573: 2566: 2559: 2558: 2543: 2533: 2525:the original 2520: 2511: 2501: 2494: 2482:. Retrieved 2478:the original 2463: 2451:. Retrieved 2446: 2437: 2424: 2420: 2415: 2399: 2394: 2386: 2381: 2376: (1895). 2360: 2356: 2347: 2342: 2330:. Retrieved 2323:the original 2318: 2305: 2290: 2285: 2269: 2264: 2246: 2237: 2223: 2215: 2210: 2188: 2169: 2159:December 10, 2157:. Retrieved 2147: 2135:. Retrieved 2131: 2121: 2109:. Retrieved 2104: 2095: 2083:. Retrieved 2072:The Guardian 2071: 2061: 2049:. Retrieved 2045: 2035: 2023:. Retrieved 2013: 2001:. Retrieved 1990:The Guardian 1989: 1979: 1967:. Retrieved 1963: 1954: 1942: 1934:The Guardian 1932: 1920: 1908:. Retrieved 1904:The Guardian 1902: 1892: 1884:The Observer 1883: 1870: 1862: 1855:. Retrieved 1841: 1831: 1816: 1791: 1787: 1777: 1759:We, The Jury 1758: 1752: 1744: 1729: 1710: 1676: 1657: 1648: 1639: 1614: 1610: 1604: 1595: 1583:. Retrieved 1578: 1568: 1560: 1552: 1547: 1529: 1521: 1515: 1507: 1501: 1493:the original 1487: 1481: 1470:, retrieved 1463:the original 1454: 1444: 1434: 1427: 1417: 1410: 1402: 1397: 1386:, retrieved 1381: 1372: 1357: 1352: 1329: 1297: 1292: 1274: 1263:, retrieved 1259:the original 1254: 1244: 1235: 1231: 1218: 1205: 1201: 1191: 1182: 1176: 1166: 1159: 1150: 1146: 1136:Duane, James 1130: 1121: 1103: 1085: 1074: 1064:September 8, 1062:. Retrieved 1058:the original 1053: 1043: 1024: 1014: 1002:. Retrieved 997: 988: 976:. Retrieved 972: 963: 916: 889: 876: 872:adding to it 867: 834:(1997), the 831: 825: 820: 816: 802: 792: 786: 779: 769: 767: 754: 751:21st century 738: 709: 688: 661: 639: 613: 602: 593: 588: 585: 581: 577: 565: 551: 531:William Mead 527:William Penn 520: 518: 508: 506: 501: 491:obiter dicta 489: 483: 464: 458: 441:Talaat Pasha 430: 404: 398: 395: 380: 366:and £300 to 341: 330:William Penn 322: 317: 296: 277: 272: 268: 253: 251: 235:Episcopalian 224: 202: 164: 160: 154: 148: 141:Samuel Chase 133: 117: 100:civil trials 92: 86: 40: 36: 28: 27: 25: 2851:Struck jury 2788:Jury stress 2132:Law Gazette 1585:December 1, 758:hung juries 676:Prohibition 623:Tam Dalyell 597:Home Office 529:. Penn and 368:John Entick 364:John Wilkes 263:Magna Carta 129:English law 37:jury equity 2726:Petit jury 2719:Indictment 2714:Grand jury 2699:Jury trial 2484:January 9, 2447:Reason.com 2332:August 16, 2278:0890897026 1794:(2): 179. 1388:January 4, 1306:0195129857 1265:January 4, 1170:, Fox News 1153:(4): 6–60. 1147:Litigation 955:References 909:Law portal 851:State laws 811:1113, the 791:decision, 729:Whig Party 609:Royal Navy 562:Old Bailey 547:Old Bailey 425:See also: 400:Stettinius 397:1839 case 383:not proven 326:petit jury 137:jury trial 106:Background 66:prejudices 61:prosecutor 53:not guilty 2887:Hong Kong 2771:Embracery 2756:Hung jury 2736:Jury fees 2731:Jury duty 2299:872139501 2137:April 22, 2111:April 22, 2085:April 22, 2080:0261-3077 2051:August 2, 2025:August 2, 2003:August 2, 1998:0261-3077 1969:August 2, 1808:146794693 1631:143638660 1472:April 12, 1004:March 23, 998:Volteface 978:March 23, 879:July 2013 781:voir dire 410:mistrials 405:in limine 376:libellous 195:in limine 189:arguments 165:The main 57:defendant 2960:Category 2897:Scotland 2598:Archived 2453:June 25, 2426:Archived 2405:Archived 2254:Archived 2251:in JSTOR 2196:Archived 2177:Archived 1910:June 30, 1833:BBC News 1825:Archived 1737:Archived 1718:Archived 1699:Archived 1665:Archived 1537:Archived 1452:(2011), 1316:, p. 219 1282:Archived 1210:Archived 1138:(1996). 1111:Archived 1093:Archived 895:See also 821:de facto 378:papers. 372:trespass 292:sedition 254:de facto 233:, a non- 94:de facto 1857:June 8, 1649:Asbarez 498:wrote: 421:Germany 354:of the 288:treason 284:bribing 167:ethical 149:require 39:, or a 2938:Groups 2902:Taiwan 2877:Canada 2365:, 2297: 2276: 2218:p. 85. 2078: 1996: 1806: 1765: 1629: 1364: 1344: 1336: 1312: 1304: 1238:: 960. 1031: 973:eNotes 817:Moylan 807:, 473 797:, 417 607:, the 535:Quaker 455:Canada 445:Berlin 229:, Sir 2927:Women 2892:Japan 2369: 2326:(PDF) 2315:(PDF) 1804:S2CID 1627:S2CID 1466:(PDF) 1459:(PDF) 1228:(PDF) 1143:(PDF) 240:, or 47:in a 2684:Jury 2584:aka 2486:2018 2455:2017 2371:U.S. 2334:2016 2295:OCLC 2274:ISBN 2174:UMKC 2161:2014 2139:2024 2113:2024 2087:2024 2076:ISSN 2053:2023 2027:2023 2005:2023 1994:ISSN 1971:2023 1912:2022 1859:2015 1763:ISBN 1587:2016 1474:2016 1390:2010 1362:ISBN 1342:ISBN 1334:ISBN 1310:ISBN 1302:ISBN 1267:2010 1066:2019 1029:ISBN 1006:2020 980:2020 809:F.2d 799:F.2d 586:... 45:jury 2619:by 2367:156 1851:BBC 1796:doi 1619:doi 1236:106 874:. 756:in 358:of 340:in 290:or 35:as 2962:: 2542:. 2519:. 2445:. 2374:51 2317:. 2130:. 2103:. 2074:. 2070:. 2044:. 1992:. 1988:. 1962:. 1931:, 1927:, 1901:. 1882:. 1861:. 1849:. 1802:. 1792:36 1790:. 1786:. 1743:, 1688:^ 1647:. 1625:. 1613:. 1577:. 1380:, 1340:, 1321:^ 1308:, 1253:, 1234:. 1230:. 1206:39 1204:. 1200:. 1151:22 1149:. 1145:. 1052:. 1023:. 996:. 971:. 747:. 686:. 494:, 435:, 131:. 2676:e 2669:t 2662:v 2546:. 2488:. 2457:. 2351:. 2336:. 2280:. 2243:" 2183:. 2163:. 2141:. 2115:. 2089:. 2055:. 2029:. 2007:. 1973:. 1914:. 1886:. 1810:. 1798:: 1771:. 1724:. 1633:. 1621:: 1615:7 1068:. 1037:. 1008:. 982:. 881:) 877:( 119:" 23:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index