Quote:
Originally Posted by yaktamer
Not really. As practical matter, jurors can do anything they want for any reason they want, insofar as the court is generally prohibited from inquiring into the reasons for their verdicts. However, there is an important difference between having the power to ignore the law and having the authority to do so. There simply is no legal authority for jury nullification. That's why jurors are instructed that they are to follow the law whether they agree with it or not, and if convinced that the government has met its burden of proof, they must return a verdict of guilty, just as they must return a verdict of not guilty if the government fails to meet that burden.
The remedies for "unjust" laws are (1) challenge the consitutionality of the law or (2) repeal the law through the legislative process. The remedy for overzealous prosecution is the election of a different prosecutor.
|
In Marbury vs. Madison, the Supreme Court decided, all on its own, with no authority from the Constitution, and no precedent that I know of, that it would decide on the Constitutionality of laws, and rule accordingly. It has done so ever since.
Juries have the power to act similarly, and I note that the Constitution guaranteed a jury trial for most criminal cases of consequence, even though the Zenger case predated the Constitution. You may certainly deny that that constitutes authority, but it hints at it at least as strongly as it does for authority of the Supreme Court to overrrule law.
Of course, juries can go further than that, and sometimes have done so wrongly. The same can be said for the Supreme Court.
In the end, while I feel that you have a good argument, there is both at least some hint of Constitutional authority, and (as could perhaps be argued for the Supreme Court) what some consider a duty to rule in the favor of justice.