CHENANGO COUNTY – Today, Chenango County voters are tasked with an all important civic duty: casting their ballots in the primary election, setting the dormant wheels of democracy into motion and stirring up contestants that will play integral rolls throughout the county for the next four years.
One of the most important factors to be decided by voters today will be who will represent the Republican line for the County District Attorney seat on the November ballot, a position held by unopposed incumbent Joseph McBride for the last 16 years.
McBride faces first time competition from opponent Zachary Wentworth, a Chenango County based public defender who tossed his hat into the ring seemingly out of nowhere earlier in 2015.
While the two candidates are running campaign platforms of change versus experience, the pair are steadfast in their opinions on several topics – including the ever controversial issue of jury nullification.
The topic of jury nullification can be somewhat taboo, and the general public's unfamiliarity is more than likely by design.
In the U.S. legal system – regardless of evidence – if a jury feels a law is unjust, it is permitted to “nullify” the law rather than finding someone guilty.
In other words, jury nullification is a jury’s way of saying, 'by the letter of the law, the defendant is guilty – but we also disagree with that law, so we vote to not punish the accused.' Ultimately, a 'not guilty' verdict rendered serves as an acquittal.
Early in our history, judges often informed jurors of their nullification right. Our first Chief Justice, John Jay, told jurors: "You have a right to take upon yourselves to judge [both the facts and law]."
In 1805, one of the charges against Justice Samuel Chase in his impeachment trial was that he wrongly prevented an attorney from arguing to a jury that the law should not be followed.
By the late 17th century, an obscure Supreme Court decision (Sparf and Hansen v. U.S, 1895), would rule that while juries have the power to nullify the law, judges are not necessarily required to inform the jury of this. A result of the stipulation of omission would pave the way for judges and prosecutors to inflate the Sparf and Hansen decision over time to forbid any mention of jury nullification from the courtroom altogether.
But in 2015, an overwhelming majority of jurisdictions across the U.S. – including all of Chenango County – defense lawyers must abide by common practices set fourth by the court; meaning they are not permitted to even mention jury nullification as a possibility during a trial.
The reasoning behind the obscurity of nullification is that most judges prefer juries to follow the general protocols as set forth by the court rather than delivering independent verdicts – something that prosecutors use to their advantage.
Wentworth agrees with the popular sentiment, and further believes that jurors should not have the right the nullify based on his belief that the outcome of aquittal doesn’t reform a seeming unjust law.
“Even if a jury comes back with a not guilty verdict through nullification, it doesn't actually change the law. All it would do is create an instance where there would not be equal justice under the law,” said Wentworth. “In essence, a jury in Chenango County could find someone not guilty while a jury in Madison County could find someone guilty under the exact same facts. While it benefits the acquitted individual, the person convicted now feels like the justice system has either failed them or treated them unfairly. Further, that 12-person jury has taken and nullified the law based on their own personal beliefs.”
Not surprisingly, the Supreme Court has routinely agreed that judges have no obligation to inform juries about jury nullification in more recent history.
Paradoxically, however, jury nullification has been permitted to exist as an option to all juries; even though the option cannot be discussed in or outside most courtrooms.
For example, in 2010 Julian Heicklen, an 80-year-old retired chemistry professor handed out pamphlets to passersby on jury nullification to people outside of a federal courthouse in Manhattan.
While Heicklen was merely attempting to educate people about how the jury system works, he was arrested and charged with “jury tampering” and prosecuted to the federal level (U.S. v. Heicklen, 2010).
Heicklen was labeled as “a significant and important threat to our judicial system” by prosecutors, but ultimately, federal judge Kimba M. Wood disagreed and the case was dismissed.
But while jurors accessing the legal loophole seems like a good idea on its face, some historical usage of nullification has been all but just.
Throughout the twentieth and twenty-first century, a rash of racist southern juries nullified cases involving hate crimes as a way of turning a blind-eye for “the good 'ol boys.” In some cases, overly optimistic juries have nullified instances of police brutality, unwilling to fault police officers – even with overwhelming evidence against the offenders.
The process of deciding wither a law is right or wrong should not lie at the discretion of one juror, according to both Wentworth and McBride.
“Jurors are to weigh the facts presented to them throughout the trial process,” said incumbent McBride. “They are sworn to not speculate, and there's no way that justice can be served when jurors speculate.”
McBride agreed with Wentworth that justice cannot be served if jurors have notions of preemptive acquittal. He indicated for jurors to “take justice into their own hands” is in essence a danger to the justice system’s mechanism of checks and balances.
“Jurors should either find the defendant guilty or not guilty based on the facts of the case presented though trial weighed against the rule of law, and nothing more,” said McBride.
Said Wentworth, “Ultimately, a jury is tasked with one of our country's most important tasks: determining someone’s guilt or innocence – or civil liability – in a court of law. Obviously, their [jurors] decision has serious consequences for the parties involved.”
As to whether or not judges or defense attorneys should inform juries of the nullification clause: absolutely not, according to Wentworth.
“Judges shouldn't instruct jurors they can nullify the law. Further, if a juror is unequivocal that they will not apply the facts to the law, it will be likely that they will be removed,” said Wentworth.
McBride said, “If individual jurors were to utilize nullification for their own personal political reason – which is often the case – it would be a terrible thing for the legal justice system in America.”