Pubdate: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 Source: New York Times (NY) Copyright: 2011 Raymond J. Brassard Contact: http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/lettertoeditor.html Website: http://www.nytimes.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/298 Author: Raymond J. Brassard Referenced: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v11/n724/a08.html THE JURY'S DUTY WHEN THE LAW IS UNFAIR To the Editor: Re "Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No," by Paul Butler (Op-Ed, Dec. 21): The concept of jury nullification is more complex than Mr. Butler suggests. Because juries deliberate in secret and do not provide reasons for their decisions, there is no doubt that jurors have the power not to follow the governing law. The critical question is whether jurors have the right to do so. For more than a century, the courts have ruled that juries have no right to decide what the law is, but rather have a duty to apply the law to the facts based on the trial evidence. In a 1983 decision, for example, the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals ruled: "A jury has no more 'right' to find a 'guilty' defendant 'not guilty' than it has to find a 'not guilty' defendant 'guilty.' ...Such verdicts are lawless, a denial of due process and constitute an exercise of erroneously seized power." If laws are unfair, our democratic process provides that legislatures will change those laws. Jurors are not elected and not accountable to the people. How are we to distinguish those juries that decline to follow the law to achieve a good outcome from those that do so for reasons related to gender, religion, race, sexual preference or politics? Jury nullification raises important questions about whether we are better protected from unfair results by laws that are uniformly applied and then lawfully changed, or by decisions of juries that may well vary from one jury to another. RAYMOND J. BRASSARD Boston, Dec. 22, 2011 The writer is a Massachusetts Superior Court judge. - --- MAP posted-by: Jo-D