Jury Nullification

I testify thatthe attached news report,which wasproduced forthe class identified above, is my original work and has non previously been submitted by me or by any superstar else for any class. I further decl are that I render cited all sources from which I usedlanguage, ideas and information,whether quoted ex performance or paraphrased, and that any and all economic aid of any kind, which I received while producing this physical composition, has been acknowledged in the References section.This paper includes notrademarked material, logos, or images from the Internet, which I do not have written consent to include. I further agree that my pick out typedon the line below is mean to have, and shall have the same validity as my handwritten signature. Studentssignature (name typed here is same to a signature) Debra Bush, Sherrolyn Newel, and John Sydney Abstract This paper forget focus on expedite-establish dialog box override as one of the remain barriers to racial equa lity in the American dodging of evaluator.The paper will be cases focus on examples of past and contemporary consort-based board override and shows how the exercise of turn tail-base board override is an ongoing source of debate in American life. The controversy e compositionates from a lack of direct goals within the outline. Finally, the paper will conclude by indicating that because of racial biases or motives, a instrument panel may not al federal agencys vote gibe to the facts presented. Jury override Jury nullification is a gore that believes that a defendant is vicey of charges hardly on his or her knowledge reason decide a non-guilty verdict.The jurors believe that the law is un honest and refuses to label an individual take d aver if there is cogent indicate of guilt. The reason can bespeak the jurors vision on unjustness and in justice because of the rush of the individual. Nullification is very contentious when it concerns race. Supporters of ra ce-based nullification believe that melanise juries should stick out drear defendants for non violent offense even when the demo of guilt is clear (Cato, 1999). Supporters believe that nigrify American should participate in race-based panel nullification to bring changes in how justice handles minority cases (Jermal, 1997).Supporters believe that the system is pay back to arrest grims for economic crimes and allow kid molesters, rapist, and murders go free. This injustice allots a campana on minorities and the faith they have in the criminal justice system. Several examples of race base nullification include * Harriett Tubmilitary personnel guilt of multiple federal official charges by violating Federal slave laws * Drug possession cases that involve three strike a psyche is out objurgate. A third felony will grant a life fourth dimension.Jury for nullification believe a harsh sentence is unjust than violating the act of the law * In Albany, N. Y. 11 white decided that an African American was guilty of distri scarcelying cocain. The 12th juror, an African American, refused to convict because the juror was sympathetic to African American who struggle to make a living * An all menacing gore acquitted an African American man accused of murder. The majority decided the man was guilty but returned a not guilty verdict Supporters for race-based instrument panel nullification want bonnieness concerning laws for minority groups.Raced-based jury nullification hinges on two truths (a) a juror cannot convict on a verdict that the renders, and (b) the Fifth Amendment concerning double chance when the system cannot retry a defendant. Supporters for race-based jury nullification believe race is a strong factor for the in high spirits poesy of acquittal in criminal cases. Race-based jury nullification, as one would say, is a extensive time thorn in the side of both prosecutors and defense attorneys. Jury nullification is simply a jury who believes the d efendant is guilty of the charges but for his or her own reasons decided to handout a non-guilty verdict (Rivera, 2006).Jury nullification can take many a(prenominal) forms. For example, race-based jury nullification may take the form of race, religion, and in many cases grammatical gender. However, based on the Cato Policy Report the nullification rest solely on the race of the defendant (Rivera, 2006). A strong wizard of race-based jury nullification is Paul butler a graduate from Yale with a J. D. from Harvard and is shortly a law professor at George Washington University. Butler believes that dour juries should acquit black defendants for nonviolent offenses even when the evidence of guilt is clear (Cato, 1999).On the surface, this may expect like the right thing to do after so many geezerhood of abuse by the system toward Blacks but race-based jury nullification goes against everything the justice system stands for. Many jurors are using race nullification as a way of red emption for the years of the imprisonment of Blacks just because of their race. In 1991, a visiting Jewish scholar, Yankel Rosenbaum, suffered a fatal stab appall in Brooklyn by a black mob outraged that a Black youngster had been run over and killed by a religious Jewish motorcade. Rosenbaum lived recollective enough to identify Lemrick Nelson Jr. s the stabber, but a largely black jury did not convict Nelson. Later, about jury members went partying with Nelson to celebrate the acquittal. Nelson subsequently move to Georgia, where he received a sentence for slashing a schoolmate (Leo, 1995). an otherwise(prenominal) famous case called the most outre case of race-based jury nullification was the psychometric test of Marion Barry, the second-term mayor of the partition of Columbia. Barry received a execration for drug possession and perjury, notwithstanding that he was obviously guilty of at least one of the 14 chargeshe smoked cocaine on FBI videotape. Black prosecutors wa nted their office to lose its case.The conjecture was that prosecution of Barry was another racist act by the law. Barry received a conviction on one of the 14 charges pending against him a misdemeanor charge for possessing cocaine in November 1989. Jurors acquitted him of one of the other charges of possessing cocaine in September 1988. On the other 12 charges, jurors were so profoundly and passionately divided they could not pass along a verdict. I believe the governance was out for Marion Barry, one juror said. U. S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson tell a mistrial on the 12 obstructed charges (Washington Post).Barry eventually received a sentence of six months in prison in October 1990. Professor Andrew Leipold wrote in the Virginia Law check over view That in his opinion the philosophical system of nullification exerts more influence over the criminal justice system than one may expect. He argues that jury nullification imposes costs on the system even when it i s not exercised because of procedural rules, permit its possible use by a jury (ONeill). Jurors moldiness perform their duties properly and justly. They mustiness take the situation seriously and must not make a finding based on their personal beliefs, but instead base their decision on the facts presented.Jury nullification is certainly a controversial topic that has many critics, especially those who convey that such an approach is disrespectful to the garner of the law. Because of these principles, The Fully Informed Jury draw came into existence in 1989 with the goal of defend and publicizing the right of juries to nullify (Lal). This is not to say that there is anything wrong with allowing Hispanic or African American communities to free judgment matters according to his or her own standards, especially when the traditional criminal justice system certainly has done the American community an unequal disservice.The justice system is install up to be fair and impartial t o all people. Although the system is set up to be fair, race-based nullification goes against these ideals. Nullification comes with many flaws one of which is incarcerate the straightforward and set the guilty free. Conclusion The aggroup examined the issues of race-based jury nullification and concluded that outer factors such as race, religion, or gender are ongoing sources of controversy in the American system of justice.The team up believes that although some critics applaud the practice that a jury, as a symbol of law should playact diverse community interests and that no single set of values or biases hold back decision making. As a consequent, the team opposes race-based jury nullification on the forgo that persons selected as trier of facts should demonstrate to indian lodge that persons charged of criminal wrongdoing are guilty on the basis of evidence presented.Although the team opposes such practice, the team likewise realizes that public respect and trust for persons selected as trier of facts will remain high within the American system of justice.