Criminal Law
State v. Roberts, 476 U.S. 951 (2021)
Study notes for State v. Roberts: professor notes, cold call prep, exam angles, and memory aids.
Juries possess the power of nullification de facto, but explicit instructions on this power are not required.
This case underscores the complexities surrounding jury discretion and the implicit powers of juries, specifically their ability to nullify laws they deem unjust. Professors often highlight the implications of instructing juries about nullification, as it touches on the fundamental principles of the criminal justice system, including the balance between legal fidelity and moral judgment. It's essential to understand that while jurors possess the power of nullification, announcing this explicitly may erode public confidence in the legal system and lead to unpredictable outcomes in verdicts.
Another crucial aspect discussed is the role of mandatory minimums in the context of sentencing and how such rigid frameworks can create dilemmas for jurors when they feel compelled to deliver a verdict that conflicts with their sense of justice. The court's decision in this case opens a broader conversation about the responsibilities of jurors and how their perceptions can fundamentally alter their willingness to uphold the law under certain circumstances.
JURIES DO NOT NEED TO KNOW THEIR POWERS.
| Case | Distinction |
|---|---|
| Sparf v. United States | In Sparf, the Supreme Court ruled that jurors do not have the right to be informed of their power to nullify. |
| United States v. Dougherty | Dougherty dealt with jury discretion but acknowledged a broader context of jury nullification. |
| Apprendi v. New Jersey | Apprendi focused on sentencing enhancements rather than jury powers but raised similar issues about the clarity of jury roles. |
Informing jurors of their nullification power might lead to more equitable outcomes in cases involving overly punitive laws.
Allowing jurors to nullify may disrupt the consistency and predictability of the rule of law and judicial outcomes.
This case may appear on exams as a discussion on jury discretion and nullification, potentially in the context of jury instructions and the implications of mandatory sentencing laws.