Jury Nullification Case

Jury Nullification

Jury duty is often a civic duty people complain about serving because it may seem to be an inconvenience. Jury duty is an important part of The United States Constitution. Members of a jury randomly selected and questioned (peremptory challenges) by both the prosecuting and defense attorney. "Peremptory challenges enable attorneys to eliminate seemingly unfit or inappropriate members of the jury pool"(McNamara & Burns, 2009, p. 263). "The Federal Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968 prohibited the exclusion of individuals based on religion, race, gender, national origin, or economic status" (McNamara & Burns, 2009, p. 261). Jury Nullification permits juries to acquit when the facts of the case suggest they convict, and thus enables citizens to play a more active role in determining justice, and who should be punished (McNamara & Burns, 2009, p. 265).

Ethnicity can influence courtroom proceedings and judicial practices in several ways. It is often heard that a defendant was found guilty by an all-white jury that has caused issues with the jury selection. Many attorneys choose jury members who are the same race as the defendant because the attorney believes the jury members will be persuaded by his or her statements. Black rage when used by a defense attorney to justify the criminal actions of an African American offender because of frustration by oppression that results from living in a White-dominated society. The purpose of a jury trial to obtain a fair and unbiased verdict by jury members with no knowledge of the case or of the defendant or any other person involved in the case.

There are both pros and cons concerning jury nullification. Despite the obligation, in criminal cases the prosecution needs to supply proof that will persuade the court or jury of the truth of one's contention (World English Dictionary, 2013). Several members of the jury choose not to sentence an individual based on the color of his or her skin. When a jury returns a verdict of "Not Guilty" despite his or her beliefs that the defendant is guilty of the violation charged is wrong, however, hard to prevent. In fact, in most cases the body of officials by whom such proceedings are instituted and carried on.

The defendant, and his or her legal advisors and a public official who is authorized to decide questions brought before a court (Hall, 1989), have the right to put a member of the jury on a panel or remove him or her from the jury room.In addition, the line of questioning put forth by everyone involved is to guarantee that the hearing is fair. Furthermore, individuals need to be incarcerated for illegal conduct or set free for his or her lack of involvement in an illegal performance. Looking past government's authority, and taking the assumed character (Hall, 1989) of any person who takes the law into his or her own hands is not the right way to get things done (White, 2013).

"Jury nullification of law" as it is sometimes called is a customary American right protected by the Founding Fathers proposed one law that must pass through before it supposes enough widespread authority executed effectively (Emal, 1996). In fact, this law keeps condemned violators locked up. This also guarantees the hearing or judgment of a matter (Hall, 1989) is honest. In addition, jury nullification keeps lawbreakers off the streets and keeps the lawbreakers from doing the same or similar violation again (White, 2013).

Lawbreakers have the potential to be set free although he or she is guilty. Individuals who serve as a member of the jury establish his or her own personal emotions instead of the information presented at the time of the trial by the court. Furthermore,