Juror Discretion
Our organization supports the restoration of what used to be a well-understood right by the framers of the constitution.
What is juror discretion?
Juror discretion refers to the ability of a jury to acquit a defendant based on the belief that applying the law in their case is manifestly unjust, regardless of the defendant’s innocence or guilt. Acquittal can be based on the belief that the law itself is unjust, that the prosecutor has misapplied the law in the defendant’s case, or that the potential punishment for breaking the law is too harsh.
Juror Discretion Core Principles
The jury has the right to be informed of the potential consequences of their verdict, and a defendant has a right to have a jury who is informed of the potential consequences of their verdict.
A jury has the right to find a defendant not guilty when a guilty verdict would be manifestly unjust, and the jury should be informed of that right.
An affirmative defense should be available to a defendant when the law, as applied to specific facts of the defendant’s case, would lead to a verdict that was manifestly unjust.
Support for Juror Discretion
Jurors shouldn’t be forced to go against their conscience in order to follow the letter of the law.
Jurors should be allowed to acquit a person when they see that the prosecutor is abusing their discretion or applying the law in a way that is blatantly unjust.
There should be a final check on government power by a judge and an accused person’s fellow-citizens.
There are over 14,261 criminal laws on the books in Utah (this includes all state, county, and municipal laws, although some similar or duplicative).* Many people break the law without even knowing it.
There is no way for the Legislature to anticipate every possible situation that would qualify as illegal in Utah. Most prosecutors will not prosecute unjust cases, but a few will.
Juror discretion will provide a broad fix to the most egregious examples of the unintended, unjust results created by the inflexible language of the law. Instead of having to write every single criminal law in such a specific way that it accounts for every conceivable situation, jurors will be the final check on the power of the statute.
In some situations, police officers are compelled to arrest someone based on the strict language of the law or office policy, but personally don’t feel like a person should be a convicted criminal.
Prosecutors shouldn’t be prosecuting someone when the result is manifestly unjust. If they think a jury would believe that a conviction would be manifestly unjust, they should drop the prosecution or pursue lesser charges.
The right to a trial by a jury of one’s peers is fundamental to the American justice system and dates back to before the Magna Carta (1215 AD).
Bill of Rights
“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed” –Sixth Amendment
Alexander Hamilton
“The friends and adversaries of the plan of the convention, if they agree on nothing else, concur at least in the value they set upon the trial by jury; or if there is any difference between them it consists of this: the former regard it as a valuable safeguard to liberty, the latter represent it as the very palladium of free government.” –Federalist 83, The Federalist Papers
Declaration of Independence (grievance against the crown)
“…For depriving us, in many Cases, of the Benefits of Trial by Jury.” (Based on the British practice of depriving jury trials by bringing cases in maritime courts.)
Magna Carta (Spooner translation)
“No freeman shall be arrested, imprisoned, or deprived of his freehold, or his liberties, or free customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or in any manner destroyed, or will we proceed against him, nor send any one against him, by force or arms, unless according to the sentence of his peers, and the Common Law of England.” (Lysander Spooner, An Essay on The Trial by Jury (1852))
John Adams
“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.” –The Works of John Adams, 253 (1856)
Alexander Hamilton
“The jury ought, undoubtedly, to pay every respectful regard to the opinion of the court; but suppose a trial in a capital case, and the jury are satisfied from the arguments of counsel, the law authorities that are read, and their own judgment, upon the application of the law to the facts…that the law arising in the case is different from that which the court advances, are they not bound by their oaths, by their duty to their creator and themselves, to pronounce according to their convictions?” – People against Croswell (1804)