Thread by @derek_debus

It actually does, though! Right there in the 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments. You just gotta know how to read it.

The story of jury nullification is actually pretty awesome. So, here’s a thread on that.

Jury nullification — a 🧵

https://twitter.com/sbcarbolic/status/1795988692927918139

First, what is jury nullification? Simply put, it’s when a jury in a criminal case voted not guilty despite more than enough evidence to convict.

Think “guy admitted having a joint in his pocket and lab said it’s pot but who gives a shit this is a waste of my time so not guilty”

But it also happens in cases where Bernhardt Goetz shoots helpless and fleeing black kids without any legal justification.

So, it can be a mixed bag. Juries are…imperfect. But even still, nullification is a good thing!

How did it start?

Well, William Penn — of Pennsylvania fame — allegedly violated a law that prohibited religious gatherings in 1600s England

And like, I say allegedly but he did that shit.

But, the jury refused to convict because the law was bullshit. Even though the evidence was overwhelming,

So, the judge sent the jury to prison. And ordered them deprived of food, water, and heat. And then fined them an insane sum of money until they returned the proper verdict.

And you know what the jury did?

Tougher it tf out and petitioned for a writ of habeus corpus to end their unlawful detention.

And the English appellate court granted it and ruled that jurors straight up can’t be punished for reaching the wrong verdict.

And that makes perfect sense

If a jury can be punished for returning the “wrong” verdict and forced to return the “right” one, then why even have the jury in the first place?

This established the principle that a jury cannot be forced to convict someone in a criminal trial.

Juries are often called the conscience of the community. And as our conscience, they should be empowered to return a verdict of not guilty for any reason or no reason.

In modern times, jury nullification is in a weird spot.

Courts have ruled that you can’t argue for it. And you can’t instruct the jury about it.

And you can ask a juror if they will nullify and strike them for cause if they say yes

But those same decisions establishing those guidelines expressly recognize “the undisputed power of a jury to acquit” even if contrary to the law and evidence.

But what’s this got to do with the Constitution?

One way (the best way, IMO) to interpret the Constitution is through the lens of what those words meant at the time of ratification and how what were they understood to mean by the drafters and people of the time?

To me, society agreed on a set of rules and wrote them down. If we want to change the rules, that’s fine, but it should be done through amendment and agreement of the people via their congressional representatives.

To figure out what the 6th amendment right to a jury means, we look to what the drafters and people at the time understood about juries. And ever since the William Penn’s jurors were psychologically tortured for not convicting, it’s been well established that juries can nullify

And after all, not respecting a jury’s acquittal would mean violating the defendant’s 5th amendment rights against double jeopardy.

And those rights (along with the 6th) are incorporated against the states via the 14th amendment’s due process clause

And that’s how the Constitution says “juries are free to acquit even if they find the defendant guilty”.