Research Paper on:
Principles of Jury Nullification

Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
to the jury and instructs them on their options regarding a verdict according to the laws that pertain to the case. What is less well known is that juries are  not compelled by law to follow the judges instructions. This principle of American jurisprudence is known as "jury nullification," and has been the source of considerable controversy and the impetus  for a grassroots movement to inform jurors and prospective jurors of their power. The following examination of this issue demonstrates that this movement constitutes a threat to the validity of  the trial by jury system. The Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA) is an organization that has promoted the dissemination of information on jury nullification. The FIJA, which was founded  in 1989, has been aggressive in informing jurors about "jury nullification," which is defined by Haynie (1997) as "the raw and undisclosed power of juries to render verdicts  contrary to both law and fact" (Haynie, 1997). The theory behind this movement is that political power will be "returned to the people" by making jurors "fully informed" of  their ability to "veto" the law, which would serve to make juries the main determinant of public policy (Haynie, 1997, p. 343). While the FIJA sees this as a  positive development, scholarly opinion uniformly refutes this position, seeing instead of "power to the people," that rule of total anarchy, since the implementation of jury nullification on a wide  scale would make the application of rule by law impossible. The assertions of the FIJA regarding jury nullification are absolutely accurate since it has long been acknowledged that juries  have the power to render verdicts that are fundamentally inconsistent with law (Haynie, 1997). However, the way that this matter has been handled is for the courts to "almost universally