JURIES SHOULD UNDERSTAND THEIR POWER

Re: From painkillers to prison, editorial, April 5.

It could not possibly be with a clear and sober mind that a jury would
convict a suffering man for nothing more than trying to ease his pain unless
the jury was simply unaware of its right to nullify the law in certain
circumstances. Nothing in the U.S. Constitution or in any Supreme Court
decision requires jurors to take an oath to follow the law as the judge
explains it or, for that matter, authorizes the judge to "instruct" the jury
at all.

Judges provide their interpretation of the law, but jurors may do their own
thinking. Understanding the context in which an illegal act was committed is
essential to deciding whether a defendant acted rightly or wrongly. Strict
application of the law may produce a guilty verdict, but what about justice?
If jurors agree that, beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused did act as
charged, then context becomes everything in reaching a verdict each juror
can live with.

When a jury believes justice requires it, the jury can refuse to apply the
law. Jurors even have the power to consider whether a law itself is wrong
and can refuse to apply any law that violates their conscience. And when the
state brings multiple charges against a defendant, as it often does so that
the jury assumes that the defendant must be guilty of something, a vote of
"not guilty" can be submitted on all counts.

- -- Ted Mazzarese, Largo