JUSTICES RULE JURORS MUST FOLLOW LAW

Conscience Can't Be Used As Guide

SAN FRANCISCO -- Judges can remove jurors who apply their conscience
instead of the law, the California Supreme Court ruled yesterday in a
case frowning on what is known as "jury nullification."

The high court, which ruled for the first time on the issue,
unanimously backed a Santa Clara County judge who dismissed a panelist
who didn't believe statutory rape was a crime. An alternate juror took
the panelist's place for deliberations -- leading to a conviction and
six-year prison term for Arasheik Williams, who was charged with
having sex with a 15-year-old girl and other crimes.

"Jury nullification is contrary to our ideal of equal justice for all
and permits both the prosecution's case and the defendant's fate to
depend upon the whims of a particular jury, rather than upon the equal
application of settled rules of law," Chief Justice Ronald M. George
wrote for the court.

The decision came as little surprise to legal scholars and criminal
attorneys.

"They didn't want a lot of mistrials from jurors who wouldn't simply
follow the law," said Pomona defense attorney James R. Bostwick Jr.

Deputy Attorney General Karl S. Mayer said the high court simply ruled
that jurors must uphold the oath that they took before being empaneled.

"This case obligates them to follow their oath, which is to follow the
law," Mayer said.

Even so, juries have and will continue to acquit criminal defendants
based on their beliefs that the crimes charged should not be criminal
offenses. It's an age-old practice dating to at least colonial times,
when publisher John Peter Zenger was acquitted of seditious libel
against the colonies' British rulers.

Today, California juries acquit some marijuana offenders who claim the
drug eases pain and suffering from cancer, and in some cases, they set
free repeat offenders facing life sentences for shoplifting under the
three strikes law.

A criminal defendant in California isn't acquitted when a jury is
split, a concept known as a hung jury. Prosecutors can retry a
defendant and often do after a hung jury. Most states, including
California, demand unanimity to convict or acquit in criminal trials.
Prosecutors are free to retry the case after a hung jury.

The jury nullification case the high court decided yesterday tested
for the first time what to do when a California judge learns that a
juror isn't upholding the law. Generally, judges are powerless to
alter verdicts that are favorable to defendants when juror misconduct
occurs behind their backs.

California judges now have the power of the law on their side when it
comes to finding out about jury misconduct. Under a 1998 edict, known
as the "snitch" rule, the judge orders jurors to inform the court if a
juror isn't applying the law during deliberations.

That is what happened in the case decided yesterday. A conscientious
juror, after being outed by fellow jurors, confessed to the judge that
"I simply cannot see staining a man, a young man, for the rest of his
life for what I believe to be a wrong reason." The juror was removed
from the case.

In a separate ruling testing the boundaries of disgruntled jurors, the
justices ruled yesterday that jurors who refuse to deliberate, but
haven't stated they object to the law, can't be removed from the panel.