Jury nullification occurs when a jury in a criminal trial delivers a verdict of "not guilty" despite evidence that suggests the defendant has technically violated the law. This decision is often based on the jury's belief that the law itself is unjust, or that its application in the specific case would lead to an unjust outcome. In other words, jurors may choose to disregard the law, their instructions, or the evidence presented if they believe that convicting the defendant would be morally wrong or contrary to principles of justice.

While jury nullification is not formally recognized or encouraged by the court of law, it remains a legal aspect of the jury’s role. It highlights the power of the jury to act as a safeguard against potential abuses of the legal system or laws perceived as unjust. Historically, jury nullification has been used to challenge laws that were viewed as discriminatory or oppressive, such as those related to racial segregation, prohibition, or civil rights.

Understanding jury nullification is important as it highlights the balance between the letter of the law and the conscience of the community. Jurors are advised not to discuss jury nullification during deliberations. Courts may remove jurors for considering their option to conscientiously acquit. This applies anytime until the verdict is officially rendered. However, it is essential to note that jury nullification can also lead to unpredictability in legal outcomes, as it relies on the personal beliefs of jurors rather than the consistent application of law.

Recommended Sources: