At the end of D's trial for armed robbery and possession of a weapon by a convicted felon, the judge instructed the jury that if the jury found D was in possession of a weapon during the commission of the robbery, the jury must find him guilty of the possession charge.
D was convicted. D argued that the jury instruction conflicted with the jury's power of nullification.
Procedural History:
Trial court found D guilty.
NJ Supreme Court affirmed, D guilty. (however, reversed and remanded on other grounds)
Issues:
Is the power of the jury to acquit, despite overwhelming proof of guilt and the jury's belief, beyond a reasonable doubt, in guilt, one of the essential attributes of the right to trial by jury?
Holding/Rule:
The power of the jury to acquit, despite overwhelming proof of guilt and the jury's belief, beyond a reasonable doubt, in guilt, is not one of the essential attributes of the right to trial by jury.
Reasoning:
The power of the jury to acquit despite proof of guilt is known as the jury's power of nullification.
The exercise of such power is undesirable and runs counter to gov't policy and sound administration of criminal justice.
Instruction about nullification is not required by constitution, statute, or common law.
Jury nullification is inconsistent with the most important value of western democracy, that we should live under a gov't of laws and not of men.
