TOP STATE COURT SAYS JURORS MUST HONOR LAW

They'll Be Removed From Case If They Put Conscience First

The California Supreme Court yesterday struck down a controversial
practice by jurors who deliver a verdict based on their consciences
and not the facts of a case.

The unanimous court did away with a centuries-old practice known as
"jury nullification" in which jurors disregard the overwhelming facts
in a criminal case and acquit a defendant based on their own broader
perception of justice.

In yesterday's decision, the justices upheld the statutory rape
conviction of a Santa Clara County man, ruling that a trial judge
acted properly in dismissing a juror who didn't believe in the law.

The court said jurors should stick to the facts and follow the law,
despite their personal beliefs. Those who can't follow the judge's
instructions should be discharged, the court concluded.

"A nullifying jury is essentially a lawless jury," Chief Justice
Ronald George wrote in the court opinion. "Jury nullification is
contrary to our ideal of equal justice for all and permits both the
prosecution's case and the defendant's case to depend upon the whims
of a particular jury."

Jury nullification dates back to colonial times, when jurors often
acquitted patriots charged with political crimes against the British
Crown. In more recent history, it was used by all-white Southern
juries to acquit white defendants accused of assaulting or killing
blacks or civil rights advocates.

Some legal experts speculated that jury nullification played a part in
the predominantly black jury's acquittal of O.J. Simpson on murder
charges after a trial where race became a prominent issue.

State Deputy Attorney General Karl Mayer said jury nullification is an
outdated practice that is no longer necessary because the justice
system has safeguards protecting defendants against overzealous
prosecutors.

The decision "puts to rest -- to the extent there was any good faith
debate -- that jury nullification is a respectable thing," Mayer said.

But Alan Scheflin, a professor at Santa Clara University School of Law
who has written several articles on the topic, says the decision will
encourage jurors to lie about their reasoning.

He said jury nullification arises in only a small number of cases
where there is an overriding moral principle involved, such as
abortion cases. "There will always be appeals to emotions by lawyers
that will attempt to capture the feel of nullification," Scheflin said.

In its ruling, the justices acknowledged that juries have the power to
acquit a criminal defendant despite overwhelming evidence of his guilt.

Nonetheless, the court said a judge can dismiss a juror who has
refused to follow the court's instructions to follow the law. "It is
important not to encourage or glorify the jury's power to disregard
the law," wrote the chief justice.

A verdict based on a jury's personal views "violates one of our
nation's most basic precepts," George said. "That we are 'a government
of laws and not men.' "

In a separate case, the court offered guidance for judges dealing with
jury misconduct, even if it does not involve jury nullification. The
justices said that a judge who suspects misconduct can hold an
inquiry, but it has to be limited and can't delve into a juror's reasoning.

In that case, the court overturned the attempted burglary conviction
of a Los Angeles man because a juror was kicked off after fellow
jurors complained that he wasn't following the law. The ousted juror
insisted that he was willing to deliberate but had problems with the
facts of the case.