Jury Nullification Allows Juries to Acquit Against the Law

In a courtroom, jurors are tasked with applying the law as explained by a judge to the facts of a case. However, they hold an unstated and potent ability to vote with their conscience instead. When a jury returns a "not guilty" verdict because they believe the law itself is unjust or its application in a specific instance is unfair, they are exercising the power of jury nullification. This is not a right that can be argued by a defense attorney, but rather an inherent power that stems from the fact that a jury's acquittal is final and cannot be overturned by a judge, even if it runs contrary to all evidence and legal instruction.

This tradition has deep roots in the history of common law, often acting as a final barrier against what citizens saw as government overreach. A landmark American example is the 1735 case of John Peter Zenger, a printer charged with libel for criticizing the colonial governor. His lawyer argued that the jury should judge not only the facts but the justice of the law itself. The jury acquitted Zenger, establishing a powerful precedent for freedom of the press. Later, in the 19th century, Northern juries frequently refused to convict abolitionists who violated the Fugitive Slave Acts, nullifying a federal law they considered morally reprehensible.

The practice remains controversial today, which is why it is rarely, if ever, mentioned in a courtroom. Proponents see it as a crucial safeguard, a final check by ordinary citizens on unjust laws and prosecutions. Opponents, however, argue that it undermines the rule of law, potentially leading to inconsistent verdicts where juries ignore laws they simply dislike, allowing personal bias to dictate justice. This tension leaves jury nullification in a legal gray area—a recognized power, but one the system actively chooses not to advertise.