Betty Waltermire
Critical Issues in Criminal Justice JUS-250
April 19, 2014

Jury Nullification the Alternative Verdict
In 1771, John Adams wrote, “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 instructions of the court” (Craig, 2010). No matter the way in which it is written the issue of jury nullification will never disappear. It seems that morality and law are in conflict. This is the beginning for jurors to feel the duty to prevent unfair or unjust criminal law on a person, the people are not willing to punish (Sheflin, 2001).
Although the meaning of jury nullification has been written by numerous people and numerous courts have made rulings on jury nullification it still reads the same. Jury nullification occurs when a jury returns a verdict of “Not Guilty” despite its belief that the defendant is guilty of the violation charged. The jury in effect nullifies a law that it believes is either immoral or wrongly applied to the defendant whose fate they are deciding (Linder, 2001).

The Grand Jury in states has the job of determining probable cause existed and believes that the defendant actually committed the crime. This group of people holds an enormous amount of power; they can change an offense to a lesser offense, numerous counts to only one, and change a capital offense to a non-capital offense all on the basis of the same facts. They are not bound to indict in every case where a conviction can be gained (Fouts).
Thomas Jefferson said of jury nullification, “I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by a government, can be held to the principles of its constitution” (Craig, 2010). If read carefully this tells someone that a trial by jury