The United States Constitution grants the facility to a jury trial to all persons accused of crimes. The jury may include an adult citizen of the United States of America who has no special knowledge in the field of law. A person must also reside in the judicial district for a certain period of time, be fluent in English, and have no previous convictions. The jury nullified the verdict when returning the sentence ‘Not guilty,’ despite believing that the defendant is guilty of a charge (Fougère, 2018). Thus, the jury tries to repeal the law, which they consider immoral or incorrectly applied to the defendant. After the jury ruled that the person was not guilty, the decision could not be challenged in court because the Constitution forbids the consideration of a case with the same defendant on an identical charge.
Important is the doctrine of reversal of a jury verdict, which is based on the fact that the racial reasoning of African-American jurors is fair and morally correct. The approach explains the possibility of rejecting a sentence on the grounds that a particular law may be unfair to a particular race. Accordingly, if the majority of jurors, for example, are African-Americans, they can defend the interests of the defendant of their race (Fougère, 2018). Cases of unjust condemnation of African Americans are a thing of the past. In today’s legal environment, judges require jurors to abide by the law, whether or not the law coincides with their beliefs. Thus, the rule must be fairly enforced regardless of the race of the jury and the defendant. Therefore, in the past, the possibility of nullification was recognized as the only chance to establish justice. In today’s world, it should be viewed as a violation of the law.
Reference
Fougère, M. (2018). The power of nullification. Arendtian perspectives on world-building practices. Dans Raisons Politiques, 70(2), 59-73.