I’ve been reading a lot about jury nullification, and I get that jurors have the power to acquit someone even if the law technically says they’re guilty. But what I don’t get is—why is this something that exists, yet courts don’t allow it to be talked about during a trial?
If it’s a legitimate part of the legal system, why is it treated like a secret? Would a juror get in trouble for mentioning it during deliberations? And what would happen if someone brought it up during jury selection?
I’m just curious how this all works in practice. If jurors can ultimately do whatever they want, what stops them from using nullification all the time?
well, if it was dismissed with prejudice, chances are the judge would be very careful with that decision, and it would be unlikely to be overturned by appellate courts. If the appellate court affirms the dismissal, it’s very, very unlikely the supreme court would take the case up (and likely to affirm the dismissal again.)
I suspect that the proscutors would, given such a dismissal accept it and go to the next case rather than fighting to overturn something they probably won’t be able to.
but there is a point where they would have run out of higher courts and at that point, a dismissal with prejudice may as well be an acquittal.
A hung jury would not cause a judge to dismiss with prejudice.