-1

There has been a fairly recent case in Britain that has reinforced the notion that jurors have an absolute right to bring in any verdict they choose irrespective of the facts of the case.

See this report in The Guardian newspaper dated 21 April 2021 - involving the acquittal of members of Extinction Rebellion

This can include their determination of guilt or innocence according to their own refusal to accept a law which they consider unfair or unjust. This is nothing new and during earlier centuries when people could be hanged, or transported to Australia for life, for such as stealing a sheep, they were often protected by juries who refused to enforce what they considered a profoundly unjust legal code.

Since the English Common Law principle of jury nullification is still alive and well in the United States (I am informed), how on earth will they go about empannelling a jury of 12 men and women who the court considers has no pre-existing view one way or the other about the alleged crimes of Donald Trump.

WS2
  • 10,706
  • 10
  • 38
  • 56
  • This isn't a political question rather a legal one and should be asked at law.se though I am guessing they will do the same that things that his other recent trials did. Also this isn't something of a concern just for Trump. – Joe W Aug 03 '23 at 17:04
  • 4
    With Donald Trump I am not clear how one separates issues of law and politics. But if others take the same view as you do I will gladly ask it on the Law site, where there are already questions about jury nullification. I just thought it is something that should be debated among Politics specialists as well. – WS2 Aug 03 '23 at 17:08
  • The same way they do it in his other trials in the last couple of years or the same way that they do it for every other trial? Just because it is harder doesn't mean that they don't do it the same way. He has been in several trials recently with strong supporters stating that they overturned their biases based on evidence and others with those that oppose him voting not guilty based on evidence. Also it is impossible to eliminate a ll potential biases rather the goal is to minimize them as much as possible. – Joe W Aug 03 '23 at 17:24
  • 6
    The term you're looking for is voir dire, it's the legal process where attorneys get to question potential jurors before the trial starts and the juror list is finalized. Law has a tag specifically for it. – Giter Aug 03 '23 at 17:29

1 Answers1

5

As a rule, jurors are evaluated for their conscience, not their biases. In other words, the judge and attorneys try to assure that jurors are capable of making decisions based solely on the evidence presented and the laws in question, setting aside personal opinions and beliefs. An example of this is one of the jurors on Trump's 'E. Jean Carroll' trial who (if I remember correctly) explicitly said that he was a Trump supporter, but set aside his MAGA hat to do his civic duty.

Such people are quite common on all sides of the fence, though we'd be hard pressed to see it from the news and opinion sector.

The question actually refers to 'jury nullification', a significantly different concept. The principle of jury nullification (which is practiced in common law, and codified in some US states) is that jurors — as a matter of conscience - can refuse to uphold badly written statutes even when there is a clear violation of those statutes. It's a way for a jury to express that bad laws are unenforceable on the face of it. That wouldn't apply to any of Trump's cases, because the jury would have to assert that the crimes in question — sexual assault, violations of national security, violations of the presidential records act, conspiracy to defraud the US and its citizens, etc. — are invalid and unenforceable statutes for everyone, not just for Trump. While there might be people in the US who think that, it's unlikely they would pass routine scrutiny by the court, much less be chosen to serve on a jury.

Ted Wrigley
  • 69,144
  • 23
  • 179
  • 235
  • 3
    But millions of Americans say they would vote for him as president - and overlook the widely reported allegations. And he must be a person on whom almost every American has a view. I just find it difficult to conceive how any jury will return anything other than a political verdict. But hopefully I am wrong. – WS2 Aug 03 '23 at 19:52
  • @WS2 That doesn't mean that those voters can't and don't overlook their bias and vote in the jury based on what all was presented at the trial. – Joe W Aug 03 '23 at 21:25
  • 5
    @WS2: It's sad to say, but media portrays the US public as blind partisans. That may be because of their need to stoke political fears, but whatever. In reality, most US citizens are in their idiosyncratic ways) civic-minded, patriotic, and proud of US institutions. If they give their oath to be open-minded, fair, and diligent, they would be ashamed to break it, and that's what fuels justice. Don't judge average citizens (of any party) by the shameless and aggressive, err... I suppose I have to say 'people'... who always seem to hog the camera lenses. – Ted Wrigley Aug 03 '23 at 23:00