If you saw 20/20 last Friday night, you may have come away as shocked as I was at the slant it put on the doctrine of jury nullification. 20/20 swallowed the Prof. Paul Butler spin on the concept hook, line, and sinker. I sent a signed hard-copy letter to the show hosts and the interviewer on Saturday morning, and if you saw the show and are as disturbed as I, let me urge you to do likewise, or to send an e-mail to its editor, William Davis.

Davis called me early last week to ask a technical question about jurors' oaths, and ended up saying, "Geez, I wish we'd contacted you earlier, before we had already produced this show." After seeing it, all I can say is, "Me too." (If you have not seen it, and want to, video copies of "The Color of Justice" are available by calling 1-800- 225-5222.)

If you want to write to William Davis, he's best reached not at the DC address shown below, but as follows:

William Davis, Editor
"The Color of Justice"
ABC News 20/20
147 Columbus Avenue
New York, NY 10023
e-mail: 2020@ABCNews.com

I URGE you to make a comment ASAP, preferably something constructively critical, which recommends that they do another show on the topic, inviting neutral points of view from experts, slants in the other direction from victims of uninformed juries, etc., if they really want to present a
"balanced look" at the doctrine of jury nullification.

Larry Dodge

Tom Jarriel, Hugh Downs & Barbara Walters, December 14, 1997
ABC 20/20
1717 Desales St. NW
Washington, DC 20036

Gentlepersons:

Do you want to know what hurts? Let me tell you: What hurts is watching Prof. Paul Butler destroy years of hard work that we and many others have put into educating the American public about the value of jury nullification as the last peaceful, legal method by which we can protect our individual rights and maintain citizen control of government.

He has taken a perfectly legitimate concept and given it a novel and frighteningly negative meaning as a tool for racial warfare. Unfortunately, many in the media have been hanging on his every word, without bothering to consult with experts on the subject, or read any of the reams of literature about it before deciding that Prof. Butler, and now they, know what jury nullification means.

In fact, the power of jurors to refuse to apply the law should be regarded as a valid and noble legal doctrine designed to prevent injustice, and to check abuses of the citizenry by the government. Much more complete, value-neutral, and correct definitions of jury
nullification than the one Butler gave on 20/20 Friday night have long been available. Our literature, for example, defines it as follows:

"When jurors unanimously agree that despite clear evidence showing the defendant acted as accused, conscience requires them to bring in a verdict of 'not guilty', or guilty only of lesser
charges, (or, in a civil case, not to award all the damages claimed), their action is known as 'jury nullification', or an exercise of 'jury veto power'.

"This power to 'do the right thing' even when the defendant is, by the letter of the law guilty or liable, is the very backbone of our jury system. Since the Magna Carta, signed by King John in
1215, trial jurors in the English and American systems have had the power and responsibility to resort to conscience whenever they feel a strict application of the law would yield an unjust conviction of, or judgment against, the defendant."

The idea of jury nullification has always been to give those who are governed the last say on the laws of the land, so that there is real meaning in, not just lip service to, the idea of government
"of, by, and for the people". It functions best when the jury is told about its inherent power to judge not only the evidence, but the law and its application, in reaching a verdict.

Informing the jury of its right to nullify was routine in our courts until the end of the last century, when the Supreme Court (for some very political reasons) declared it to be only a "power"-
-and that the court was therefore not obliged to tell jurors about it. But colonial and early American jurors had handled knowledge of their veto power very well. For example, juries had established our rights to free speech and press by rejecting the application of laws against these rights, and had ended slavery in many states by refusing to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act, long before the Civil War even began.

Like any right, jury nullification can be abused, of course. Nowadays, courts make the first move in encouraging abuse by incorrectly instructing juries that they may judge "only the evidence, not the law". Lying to the jurors in this manner only allows those who know better to justify lying back to the court during jury selection, in order to get seated and do what Prof. Butler is advising.

If, instead, our courts would resume informing jurors of their power to bring in a verdict according to conscience, and that their fellow citizens are trusting them to use this power wisely and
sparingly, it would bring out the best instead of the worst in those who are serving, and reduce the chance that nullification will become the weapon of choice for those wanting to escalate
racial warfare.

The opposite effect is likely as the media continue to give Prof. Butler and his errant pronouncements, definitions, and logic top billing, thus supporting his intent to teach at least all black people how to abuse our jury system.

For liberty and justice by jury,

Larry Dodge, founder
Fully Informed Jury Association
Address: 3988 Goodfellow Drive, Dallas, TX 75229
phone: (214) 357-0902
e-mail: lbdodge@flash.net
web site: http://www.FIJA.org

Browse more of the JRP site
You Can Help!