If a jury fails or refuses to convict a defendant in a criminal trial even though there if proof of guilt, jury nullification takes place. This is because the jury believes the law is being biased or unjust. If jury nullification is used in an honest and appropriate manner, it is likely to favor minorities in the courtroom in terms of sentencing for the crime committed as opposed to it being based on race. Most people that are picked to be on a jury do not know about jury nullification. A jury, juror, or judge can nullify a case in almost any
This classification makes sense because if crime is caused by terrorists; terrorist will cause crimes. If the majority of minorities are in prisons, then people of color will end up in prison. On the opposing side of racial profiling, many minorities feel that it is a form of racial discrimination that only hurts the good image law enforcement upholds. For example, the California Highway Patrol has recently been taken to court for the misuse of racial profiling. Therefore, a compromise must be made because it would be ideological to believe that there can be a government that bans the use of racial identification.
Jury Nullification Paper John Doe CJA 344 August 2012 Instructor Name Jury Nullification Paper Jury Nullification and it’s affects on the criminal justice system. Jury Nullification is a process that allows jurors to acquit an individual, even when they are technically guilty, and not warrant for punishment. In essence the juror are suggesting that the law in general is unfair or in a particular case. Jury Nullification “Is rooted in English common law and is sometimes used in cases, in which the jury believes a prosecutor enforced an unpopular law or a jury sympathizes with the defendant” (McNamara & Burns, 2009, p. 265). Because of perceived mistreatment of African American by the criminal justice system, Jury Nullification has become controversial because a number of well-known African American scholars encouraged Black jurors to acquit Black defendants (McNamara & Burns, 2009).
The disadvantage of the unanimous verdict requirement is further exacerbated by the potential for guilty defendants being found not guilty simply because one juror decides to hold out on a guilty vote. This possibility can be played out under any number of scenarios; i.e., the hold-out juror is hoping for a guilty verdict on a lesser charge, or decides he or she cannot bring themself to follow through on a vote that could cost someone their life or freedom. In the Apodaca v. Oregon decision, the Court stated that the key question is whether a nonunanimous jury can fulfill the essential function of the jury. With their decision, the Court declared that it could, at least in state trials where the death penalty was not an option. Unanimous verdicts remain requirements in federal criminal trials.
Jury Nullification Paper Katrice Brown CJA/334 Cultural Diversity in Criminal Justice 28 July 2014 Professor S. Jury Nullification Paper “Jury nullification occurs in a trial when the jury determines verdict based on personal belief, even though the member of the jury believes the defendant to be guilty of the charges” ("Jury Nullification," 2014). Jury nullification can be very inequitable to parties involved in many court cases. It is because the jury chose to ignore the facts of the case and the judge’s instructions, and based his or her decision on personal opinion. When the race of the defendant has any cause on the outcome of the juries’ decision to drop charges regardless of the amount of evidence, raced-based jury nullification becomes the case. Race-Based Jury Nullification Race-based jury nullification has been in the criminal justice system for many years.
Chapter 12 Peremptory Challenge- A challenge that a party has to eliminate a potential juror, each side has a limited number of peremptory challenges, and it is not required to provide a reason for this challenge, and it may not be used to exclude one gender or race from the jury. Boston vs. Kentucky (1986)- held that prosecutors are barred from using peremptory challenges to remove black jurors because of their race. Challenges for cause- A challenge to a potential juror based on the jurors qualifications or lack of impartiality, (must have a reason) California vs., Green-held that Defendant is entitled to be confronted by the witness against him or her stated by the us Supreme Court. Benefits of being confronted by witness 1. Insures
Exclusionary Rule Evaluation Paper Brandy Alston University of Phoenix Criminal Procedure CJA/353 Professor Joseph Wade April 11, 2012 Exclusionary Rule Evaluation Paper Should the exclusionary rule be abolish this question is one not to simple to answer. Many individuals say no other say yes, and for those that do not know what the exclusionary rule is then they do not know their Forth Amendment Right. This makes answering this question harder, the Exclusionary Rule and Fourth Amendment works jointly for the United States and the citizens. The Fourth Amendment in the US Constitution limits the action of official law enforcement and helps keep the public rights from being violated for unreasonable searches or something close in that rang. This paper will define Exclusionary Rule, the rationale and purpose of the Exclusionary rule, the exceptions, cost and benefits and alternative remedies to the Exclusionary Rule and if we should keep or wipe out the Exclusionary Rule.
That is, the judge holds that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient grounds, even what is claim is true, to be able to win a verdict. After a jury returns a verdict, the losing party may make a motion for judgment as a matter of law or a motion for judgment now withstanding the verdict. The judge is asked to hold that there were not legally sufficient grounds to support the jury’s verdict and to either overturn the entire verdict or a portion of it. Courts preferred post– verdict motions to pre—verdict motions because, if an appeals court reverses a post verdict motion, there is no need to redo the entire trial. Q: The jury believes the expert testimony presented for plaintiffs.
It is possible that the truth is, that government officials have deliberately engineered the system to assure that the jury trial system established by the Constitution is seldom used, instead plea bargaining is the primary technique used by the government to bypass the institutional safeguards in trials (Timothy Lynch Cato Institute). Some argue that plea bargaining results in criminals receiving undeserved leniency, while others argue that plea bargaining subject’s defendants to unjustifiable pressure to forego their constitutional right to a jury trial. Scholars have attacked plea bargaining on the ground that prosecutors wield too much power over defendants and coerce them into accepting plea agreements which might be unfair. Some commentators add that these defendants are too often deprived of
The United States Judicial System and Racial Profiling ENG 122 Lisa M. Carlo May 27, 2013 The United States Judicial System and Racial Profiling There is reluctance in American society to talk about race and crime because race is a touchy subject. Everything in today's society has to be politically correct. One has to be very careful what they write or say because of the fear of what might happen if someone misunderstood what the real meaning to their statement was. For that reason, when a person talks about race and crime many individuals may interpret their opinions differently. Therefore, many people try to avoid talking about such controversial subjects.