A former Justice Department employee who threw a sandwich at a federal agent during President Donald Trump’s law enforcement surge in Washington has been found not guilty of assault.
I think that was the point of the original commenter.
The jury had no faith in the judicial system to carry out a fair punishment for this crime so they decided to find him not guilty despite believing he broke the law (which is illegal to do as a juror).
Judges are bound by the Separation of Powers. A judge who refuses to apply a legislated law against a particular defendant would (effectively) be exercising powers of the legislature. The judge cannot do this, nor can they advise a jury that this can be done, or otherwise enable the jury to do this.
However, a juror is not bound by the separation of powers. They are not an agent of the government. They are laypersons. Members of “We The People”, who are the same authority that gives us the Constitution.
It is not illegal for a juror to determine that the legislature failed to consider a particular defendant’s specific circumstances when they established a law, and exercise their constitutional authority in finding that defendant not guilty of having violated that law.
As far as I can see in the examples on Wikipedia, it is not unless it can be proven the juror intentionally uses jury nullification. The listed 1996 case hinged on the juror saying something to this effect in a secret jury deliberation. However, the case was dropped because this information was not admissible in court, as these secret deliberations are … secret.
I think that was the point of the original commenter.
The jury had no faith in the judicial system to carry out a fair punishment for this crime so they decided to find him not guilty despite believing he broke the law (which is illegal to do as a juror).
Judges are bound by the Separation of Powers. A judge who refuses to apply a legislated law against a particular defendant would (effectively) be exercising powers of the legislature. The judge cannot do this, nor can they advise a jury that this can be done, or otherwise enable the jury to do this.
However, a juror is not bound by the separation of powers. They are not an agent of the government. They are laypersons. Members of “We The People”, who are the same authority that gives us the Constitution.
It is not illegal for a juror to determine that the legislature failed to consider a particular defendant’s specific circumstances when they established a law, and exercise their constitutional authority in finding that defendant not guilty of having violated that law.
Didn’t they basically just do jury nullification?
As far as I can see in the examples on Wikipedia, it is not unless it can be proven the juror intentionally uses jury nullification. The listed 1996 case hinged on the juror saying something to this effect in a secret jury deliberation. However, the case was dropped because this information was not admissible in court, as these secret deliberations are … secret.