Controversy
follows jury nullification everywhere in criminal law. The power that a jury has to refuse convicting
a defendant, even when the prosecution has provided evidence beyond a
reasonable doubt, understandably does not bode well with many judges and
prosecutors. Jurors have the power to
nullify because courts cannot overturn a not guilty verdict since this would
violate a defendant’s constitutional right to a jury trial.[1] During O.J. Simpson’s trial, discussion of
jury nullification stood at the forefront as Simpson’s defense attorney
encouraged the jury to acquit Simpson even if they found him to be guilty so
the jury could send a message to the Los Angeles Police Department.[2] Nullification has also appeared in cases
where prosecutors charge abused wives for the murder of their abusive husbands, in cases where minors are involved in drug possession or distribution of
narcotics.[3] The question of nullification appeared in
other high profile cases, like the case of former D.C. mayor Marion Barry. Barry was convicted of only one minor count out
of the fourteen charges against him by an African-American jury when he was
caught on tape smoking crack cocaine, even though the trial judge in that case
commented that the prosecutor has a very strong case against him.[4]
