Jury Nullification Case Study

650 Words3 Pages
The issue with the separation of guilty-innocent phase and sentencing phase if because the Supreme court if afraid of jury nullification; jury Nullification is when the jury acquit the defendant, when the mitigating factors are presented, which will create the jury to justify and understand the reasons why the accused committed the crime. If the mitigating factors were not presented at the guilt-innocent phase, the jury otherwise would have convicted the defendant. Mandery explains that: “In the mitigating evidence related to some ongoing physical condition of the defendant- mental impairment, for example- or to some aspect of the crime itself- such as rendering assistance to the victim- then it may be revealed during the guilt phase as part…show more content…
If during the guilt-innocent phase of the trial jury will hear all the evidence, it will change the outcome especially on capital trials. The accused goes to a commit a crime with all of his past, the abuse, the drug dependency, then why not bring all to trial, every thing effects why the crime was committed and the way the crime was committed, why would the jury not hear about all the fact? All the facts that bought the defendant to commit the crime will influence the decision of the jury. “The hears most of the aggravating evidence during the guilt phase, but very little of the mitigating evidence” (Mandery, 2012, p.136). “Whether a particular procedure is advantageous to one party or the other is a separate question from whether the procedure is likely to generate greater predictability in outcome”(Mandery, 2012, p.136). It is evident that the court to find the defendant guilty than to take into consideration all the evidence places much more…show more content…
In capital trials. (Jurors are supposed to first decide guilt or innocence and then use statutory guidelines to decide the punishment. The distinction is vital because evidence of mitigating factors that weigh against a death penalty is introduced in the sentencing stage.) • 39.4 percent discussed the punishment while they were deciding guilt, another improper consideration at that stage. • 42.9 percent believed they were required to impose the death penalty if they found the crime was heinous, vile or depraved, and 32.6 percent thought it was required if they believed the defendant would be dangerous in the future. • When asked who held the responsibility for the death penalty decision, 54.7 percent said it was strictly or mostly the jury, 23.2 percent said partly the jury and partly the judge and appeals courts, and 17.8 percent-said mostly the judge and appeals courts. • More than 50 percent said the prosecution had a stronger commitment to winning and did a better job preparing the case for trial, communicating with the jury and fighting at the trial's guilt stage. (Burgins, 1995, Vol. 81, Issue

    More about Jury Nullification Case Study

      Open Document