ABSTRACT
Jury nullification occurs when jurors, based on their own sense of justice, fairness, or prejudice, refuse to uphold the law as explained to them by a judge and acquit defendants who are obviously guilty of violating the law. Jurors nullify that law. Jurors may have both good and bad motives for nullifying or ignoring laws. Whatever their reasons, nullification makes the administration of justice highly subjective. Infamous examples of jury nullification involved southern juries in the 1950s and 1960s refusing to convict Ku Klux Klan defendants of harassing and murdering African Americans. Juries through nullification may make the administration of justice more fair and may compel legislatures to enact laws that are more in line with societal values. Traditionally, judges and legal scholars have opposed the concept of jury nullification. They see jury nullification as undemocratic, claiming that juries are not always representatives of the community, are ridden with local biases, and subvert the legislative process.
