This topic may be of little general interest — perhaps one that appeals only to criminal defense attorneys and their hopeful clients. But I was intrigued, so I'm relating it. And you must read to the end to see why.
An hour ago I was in my car listening to an NPR program (I missed the name). The subject of jury nullification came up, whereupon one of the two hosts said, in so many words, Let's turn to our legal expert — whose name I also missed — for a professional definition of precisely what "jury nullification" means.
The expert then promptly butchered the definition. He explained that jury nullification occurs when a jury acquits a defendant because of mitigating circumstances. For example — in fact, the one the lawyer gave — a man steals a car so that he can rush his injured child to the hospital. He clearly stole the car in violation of the law, but since he had good reason to do so, the jury ignores the law and acquits him.
Mitigating circumstances may very well play into an instance of jury nullification, but they're not required. O.J. Simpson, for one, was embarrassingly guilty of murdering two people in cold blood. Yet the jury acquitted him. There was no credible evidence of Simpson's innocence, nor were there any mitigating circumstances in his ghastly acts of homicide. The jury simply decided that he would walk free.
Still, what the jury did was perfectly legal. Unconscionable, but legal. The jury executed the most basic definition of jury nullification, which "occurs when a jury returns a Not Guilty verdict even though jurors believe beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant has broken the law." (No rational mind could have believed otherwise of Mr. Simpson, for instance.)
I raise this issue because someday it could corrupt the very foundation of the American judicial system. Let's say a former president finally goes on trial for sedition and attempting to defraud the government of the United States. A few other felony charges are thrown in — all of which the former president is embarrassingly guilty of having committed.
Just the "right" jury, however — one carefully chosen by this former president's defense attorneys — could acquit the brazen miscreant. No questions asked, no answers given. The spectre haunts.