Pubdate: Tue, 08 May 2001
Source: Sacramento Bee (CA)
Copyright: 2001 The Sacramento Bee
Contact:  http://www.sacbee.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/376
Author: David Kravets, Associated Press Writer

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.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth