| abstract | - A jury defies all logic and common sense and comes back with verdict contrary to the evidence. It's not a Joker Jury, Jury of the Damned or a Kangaroo Court -- a group of regular citizens has come back with the wrong decision. Usually, a not-guilty verdict is intended to demonstrate the jury's outright gullibility (or intimidation), whereas an unfair guilty verdict indicates they were unable to see past some fear or prejudice against the defendant. In real life (principally in the USA) the "voire dire" process is meant to ensure that juries are made up of fair and impartial members who will treat the case seriously. In the UK and Commonwealth, it can include testing the compentancy of potential jurors. Still, a number of high-profile cases with unexpected outcomes have led to juries being described as "twelve people too stupid to get out of jury duty." Occasionally, a surprise acquittal can be due to a phenomenon known as "jury nullification", in which the jurors return a "not guilty" verdict even though the prosecution has in fact proven their case. This is usually because the jury feels that extenuating circumstances justify the crime, or occasionally because they feel the law is simply wrong. (The legal system says that it is not the jury's place to decide what the law should be, but to come to a conclusion as to whether the law as it is currently written has or has not been broken. Changing laws requires it to go through the governmental process that was designed for the purpose.) Defense attorneys are generally not allowed to argue in favor of nullification, but some will try to suggest that the law is unfair or overly harsh, implying that the jury should nullify without requesting it directly. No Real Life Examples, Please. It seldom ends well. Examples of Common Nonsense Jury include:
|
