Jury Nullification Quotes

It is not only [the juror's] right, but his duty…to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.

Juries are not qualified to judge questions of law, but they are very capable of judging questions of fact.

I spent my time trying to understand grand jury procedure - a topic about which I never before had the slightest interest.

I'm still angry with Simpson for getting by with two murders.

The juries [are] our judges of all fact, and of law when they choose it.

One often-cited abuse of the [jury] nullification power is the acquittal by bigoted juries of whites who commit crimes (lynching, for example) against blacks. That repellent practice cannot be directly arrested without jeopardizing important constitutional protections.

It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision.....you have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy.

A jury consists of twelve persons chosen to decide who has the better lawyer.

Cagey trial lawyers have figured out there's a pretty good likelihood their case - no matter what its merit - will literally get its day in court because of favorable judges.

Now it is clear, that if the government can exclude, on account either of their opinions or feelings, any persons thus drawn by lot, the trial is no longer a trial by 'the country,' but only by a portion of the country.

A jury is composed of twelve men of average ignorance.

If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by a judge, and contrary to the evidence … and the courts must abide by that decision.

I've served on five different juries, and many of them were bonkers in their own way.

Laws they are not, therefore, which public approbation hath not made so.

To exclude all jurors who would be in the slightest way affected by the prospect of the death penalty would be to deprive the defendant of the impartial jury to which he or she is entitled under the law.

I have faith in the jury system.

There are very few countries in the world where we have a jury system as we all know.

Being on a grand jury felt like attending a series of hangings in a legal Wild West. Hands up for a true bill. Hands up for a dismissal. A show of hands to save a life, or to end it.

I felt grand juries were illegal and coercive.

I did not see any major issues other than the jury substitutions. I can't know whether there's a problem there, until I read the transcript from the in-chambers conference, when those jurors were excused.

But for their right to judge of the law, and the justice of the law, juries would be no protection to an accused person, even as to matters of fact; for, if the government can dictate to a jury any law whatever, in a criminal case, it can certainly dictate to them the laws of evidence.

Trial by jury is the inherent and invaluable right of every British subject in these colonies

When you go into court you are putting your fate into the hands of twelve people who weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty.

We operate under a jury system in this country, and as much as we complain about it, we have to admit that we know of no better system, except possibly flipping a coin.

I certainly believe it's over for the jury system, but we won't admit it for a while.