STATE SUPREME COURT FROWNS ON JURY NULLIFICATION

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- Judges can remove jurors who apply their conscience
instead of the law, the California Supreme Court ruled Monday 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 did not
believe statutory rape was a crime. An alternate juror took panelist No.
10'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 under the three strikes law for
shoplifting.

A criminal defendant in California is not 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 Monday tested for the
first time what to do when a California judge learns that a juror is not
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 is
not applying the law during deliberations.

That is what happened in the case decided Monday. 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 Monday that jurors who refuse to deliberate, but have not
stated they object to the law, cannot be removed from the panel.

The cases are People v. Williams, S066106, and People v. Cleveland, S078537.