Earlier this month, the authority of
the jury received a welcome nod from the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals. In a case in which the defendant confessed in the
courtroom to all of the charges against him, the court ruled that a
directed “guilty” verdict was out of line, since the jury still had
the right to make its own decision by its own criteria, no matter
what the judge thought. For fans of jury nullification, here’s a
new endorsement of the power of a jury to bring a “not guilty”
verdict for reasons of its own.
In the case of United
State of America v. Juan Agudin Salazar, Judge Jerry E.
Smith wrote:
Juan Salazar was charged with multiple drug and gun violations.
At trial, the government presented overwhelming evidence of
guilt; against the advice of counsel, Salazar decided to testify
and confessed to all of the crimes charged. At the trial’s
conclusion, believing no factual issue remained for the jury, the
district court instructed the jury “to go back and find the
Defendant guilty.” Because the Sixth Amendment safeguards even an
obviously guilty defendant’s right to have a jury decide guilt or
innocence, we vacate the conviction and remand.
Smith went on to point out that Salazar may have confessed, but
he hadn’t changed his plea. That left the ultimate decision of
“guilty” or “not guilty” in the hands of the jury. Under the Sixth
Amendment, he wrote, “a defendant’s confession merely amounts to
more, albeit compelling, evidence against him. But no amount of
compelling evidence can override the right to have a jury determine
his guilt.”
The Fully Informed Jury Association
suggests this case “has in effect re-affirmed the right of jury
nullification, in which jurors may conscientiously deliver a Not
Guilty verdict even in the face of overwhelming evidence that the
law has technically been broken.”
That’s probably not what Judge Smith and his colleagues
had in mind. But accidental victories can still be chalked up in
the “win” column.
from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1lRNawJ
via IFTTT