Defendants represented themselves to communicate directly with jurors about their legal right to acquit A jury at Bradford Crown Court has defied a judge’s attempts to rule out any legal argu…
Maybe not, but the whole reason jury nullification exists is so that if the jury feels the law is unjust or the reason a person broke the law is so wholly justified they have a way to rule accordingly
It’s an important cornerstone of our legal system. Laws are written by humans and they can be flawed and/or unjust or written for malicious purposes. There should always be a failsafe lever to pull in the legal system and jury nullification is that failsafe
And the only reason he can be retried is that not all jurors agreed. Had they just refused to enforce the law, then they walk free forever (at least from that crime).
If the jury can’t make one time exceptions to the law then there’s no reason to have a jury. The entire point of a jury is to prevent the government from oppressing the people via the court room.
deleted by creator
Maybe not, but the whole reason jury nullification exists is so that if the jury feels the law is unjust or the reason a person broke the law is so wholly justified they have a way to rule accordingly
It’s an important cornerstone of our legal system. Laws are written by humans and they can be flawed and/or unjust or written for malicious purposes. There should always be a failsafe lever to pull in the legal system and jury nullification is that failsafe
And the only reason he can be retried is that not all jurors agreed. Had they just refused to enforce the law, then they walk free forever (at least from that crime).
If the jury can’t make one time exceptions to the law then there’s no reason to have a jury. The entire point of a jury is to prevent the government from oppressing the people via the court room.
Right to Acquit is for unjust laws though.