Because of the trial of Darrell Brooks folks are again becoming aware of the concept of jury nullification - that is, the concept that although the prosecution may prove the facts beyond a reasonable doubt, a jury has the power to find a defendant not guilty and thus not enforce the law.
Brooks argued this should be applied to him in a desperate bid to secure a not guilty verdict.
The thing that Brooks, and a lot of people, fail to grasp is that when you are arguing for an outcome not comporting to the law, you are arguing for the jury to make a moral and/or ethical decision, not a legal one.
And in order for that to hold water or be remotely likely, one of two things generally must apply.
1) The jury must believe that the law itself is inequitable and should not be enforced.
This is a “it’s a crime, but it shouldn’t be for anyone” deal. You see this argument with malum prohibitum laws - laws that outlaw things but generally “harm no person” (other than potentially the defendant themselves) or laws necessary simply for an orderly regulation of society.
In that case a jury may say “Why is it a felony to hop on one foot on Sundays in June? That’s ridiculous. We’re not enforcing Not guilty even though they totally did it.”
OR
2) The particular facts of the case should not, in the eyes of the jury, result in the law being enforced against that specific defendant.
For example, a man killing his daughter’s rapist. See “A Time to Kill.”
Of course, this is also used negatively, such as when an all white jury wouldn’t convict a Klan member of Murder in the Deep South.
In other words, it’s tricky because jury nullification is a knife that cuts both ways - it can be used to prevent the strict application of the law from being inequitable, and it can be used to subvert justice and promote inequity.
As applied to Brooks, though, I have no clue why he made an argument for it.
He was charged with murder, after driving through a parade, and showed no remorse. He presented no extenuating circumstances. The law was not unjust - it was murder. The facts were not in his favor or even remotely extenuating - they were horrendous.
Essentially, he asked a jury to nullify simply because he didn’t think he should be convicted without making any real appeal that would support it.
And when you do that, you’re not asking the jury to make a moral or ethical decision, you’re asking the jury to condone what you have done by saying the law should not apply to you simply because you’re you.
No jury was ever going to do that.
Col. Boozy Badger
Roy the "Popular" 