Jury nullification

Jury nullification

Jury nullification occurs when a member of the jury acquits a defendant who is factually guilty because they are in disagreement with the written law, as seen in the case of NJ Weedman, who disagreed with the ruling about the drug war. The other factor for the occurrence of jury nullification is when a jury convicts a defendant. After all, it condemns defendants or the actions, although the evidence at the trial portrays that he/she didn’t violate any law technically. Nullification is primarily not an official part of criminal procedure; however, it is a logical consequence applied in that jurors cannot be punished for reaching a wrong decision. The defendant, who is acquitted, cannot be tried for the same alleged crime in front of another jury. Jury nullification portrays a source of much debate. One of the importance of it is that it a safeguard of the last resort against wrongful imprisonment and government tyranny like seen in NJ Weedman, who has to smoke marijuana due to his medical condition of bone cancer. Although the jury nullification seems to undermine the law through violating the oath sworn by jurors, some considerations need to be made as argued by NJ Weedman as he challenges the law, which sometimes is unjust. His argument that was supported with the diagnosis of a critical medical condition was essential to be acquitted, although the criminal trial jury believed that the defendant was guilty.