California Supreme Court
Throws Out Jury Nullification
By Matt Sebastian
msebastian@cctimes.com
Contra Costa Times Staff Writer
contracostatimes.com
5-10-1
* High court throws out 'conscience.'
* Jurors may no longer refuse to convict a person on the basis of a law they believe is unjust.
SACRAMENTO - California jurors must follow the law, and not their consciences, when deliberating, the state Supreme Court ruled Monday, dismissing the historic doctrine of jury nullification as "contrary to our ideal of equal justice for all."
The justices unanimously upheld a Santa Clara County judge's decision to remove a juror who refused, on principle, to consider convicting an 18-year-old defendant of statutory rape.
The ruling, the court's first on nullification, is a blow to proponents of the unwritten, but time-tested, principle that jurors are the "conscience of the community" and should reject unjust laws by refusing to convict.
"Judges have systematically refused to grapple with what nullification really means," said Alan Scheflin, a Santa Clara University law professor. "They've erected this bogeyman that they take great delight in destroying."
Nullification "may sound lofty," Chief Justice Ronald M. George wrote, "but such unchecked and unreviewable power can lead to verdicts based on bigotry and racism."
The court, in its 28-page opinion, also warned that nullification would leave the fate of defendants to the "whims of a particular jury" which could disregard the presumption of innocence or even convict "by the flip of a coin."
Jury nullification dates back hundreds of years, but rose to prominence during the Revolutionary War period. Juries have since used the principle to acquit those who helped free slaves during the 1800s, as well as bootleggers prosecuted during Prohibition.
"There's no constitutional basis for jury nullification, yet it does exist," said Rita Simon, a law professor at American University. "De Toqueville even mentioned it when he praised the American jury system."
Monday's opinion stems from the 1995 conviction of Arasheik W. Williams by a Santa Clara jury on charges of torture, false imprisonment, assault and statutory rape.
During closing arguments, Williams' attorney told the jurors that "a jury may, at times, afford a higher justice by refusing to enforce harsh laws."
Hours into deliberation, the jury foreman reported to the judge that juror James Kelly refused to discuss the statutory rape charge because "he believes the law is wrong."
Kelly told Judge Paul Teilh he couldn't consider the rape charge: "I simply cannot see staining a man, a young man, for the rest of his life for what I believe to be the wrong reason."
Under the American legal system, juries need not explain how they arrived at their verdicts. But judges can, and do, remove jurors who make it known they will practice nullification.
In the Williams case, the judge removed Kelly from the jury, saying he had violated his oath of service that required the juror to follow the judge's instructions.
The jury, with an alternate in place, voted the next day to convict Williams, who was later sentenced to six years in prison.
"This ruling will only encourage jurors to lie," Scheflin said. |
