Jury Nullification : The Hidden Right that could have ended Slavery.
Jury Nullification: The Right They Don’t Want You to Know About
Ever heard of jury nullification? Probably not. And that’s on purpose.
Jury nullification is the idea that a jury can refuse to convict someone, even if they technically broke the law, because the law itself is unjust or being misapplied. It’s been used throughout history to stop government overreach, fight corrupt prosecutions, and push back against bad laws.
The problem? The courts don’t want you to know you have this power. Judges won’t tell jurors about it. Lawyers aren’t allowed to argue it in court. And in some cases, people who try to educate jurors about nullification outside courthouses have been arrested for jury tampering.
Yeah, you read that right. It’s legal, but they don’t want you to know it’s legal.
⸻
How Jury Nullification Changed History
You don’t have to take my word for it. Here are just a few times when juries used nullification to override the law:
• 1670 – Bushell’s Case (England)
William Penn (yes, the guy Pennsylvania is named after) was arrested for preaching in public. The jury refused to convict, so the judge locked them up until they changed their minds. They still refused, and a higher court ruled that jurors can’t be punished for their verdicts.[¹]
• 1794 – Georgia v. Brailsford (U.S. Supreme Court)
Chief Justice John Jay told a jury straight up that they have the right to judge both the law and the facts. This wasn’t some fringe idea—it was how the system was supposed to work.[²]
• 1850s – Fugitive Slave Act Trials
When the federal government tried to force Northern states to return escaped slaves, juries flat-out refused to convict people who helped them escape. Their verdicts made the law unenforceable.[³]
• 1920s – Prohibition Cases
When alcohol was illegal, juries simply stopped convicting people for selling booze. Jury nullification helped drive the repeal of Prohibition.[⁴]
• 1960s – Vietnam War Draft Cases
Some juries refused to convict draft dodgers. Again, people used their jury power to reject an unpopular law.[⁵]
⸻
The Conspiracy: You Have the Right to Know, But They Won’t Tell You
Here’s where it gets interesting. The legal system admits that jurors have this power, but they’ve gone out of their way to make sure you don’t know about it.
• Sparf & Hansen v. U.S. (1895) – The Supreme Court ruled that judges do not have to tell jurors about nullification.[⁶]
• United States v. Moylan (1969) – The court acknowledged that jurors can nullify, but said they still have to follow the judge’s instructions.[⁷]
• United States v. Dougherty (1972) – This case made it official: judges and lawyers can deliberately withhold information about jury nullification from jurors.[⁸]
• People v. Williams (2001) – The California Supreme Court ruled that jurors can actually be removed if they refuse to apply the law.[⁹]
That last one should make you pause. If jury nullification is legal, but courts can remove jurors who use it, what does that tell you?
⸻
Why Would They Hide This?
Because it weakens government control.
If jurors knew they had the power to override bad laws, they’d do it. That means prosecutors wouldn’t be able to rack up easy convictions, and lawmakers wouldn’t be able to enforce unjust policies.
The Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA) has been fighting for years to educate people about this. But guess what? People handing out jury nullification pamphlets outside courthouses have been arrested for “jury tampering.”[¹⁰]
They don’t want you to know the truth.
⸻
What Can You Do?
1. If you ever serve on a jury, remember this: You are not there to blindly follow orders. You have the right to judge whether the law is just.
2. Spread the word. Most people have no idea jury nullification exists. The courts sure as heck won’t tell them.
3. Support organizations like FIJA that fight to make sure jurors are fully informed of their rights.
The system only works if people know how to use it. And right now, they’re counting on you not knowing.
⸻
Sources and References
1. Bushell’s Case, 124 Eng. Rep. 1006 (1670).
2. Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 1 (1794).
3. Paul Finkelman, An Imperfect Union: Slavery, Federalism, and Comity (University of North Carolina Press, 1981).
4. Richard J. Bonnie & Charles H. Whitebread, The Marijuana Conviction: A History of Marijuana Prohibition in the United States (University of Virginia Press, 1999).
5. David Farber, The Age of Great Dreams: America in the 1960s (Hill and Wang, 1994).
6. Sparf & Hansen v. United States, 156 U.S. 51 (1895).
7. United States v. Moylan, 417 F.2d 1002 (4th Cir. 1969).
8. United States v. Dougherty, 473 F.2d 1113 (D.C. Cir. 1972).
9. People v. Williams, 25 Cal.4th 441 (2001).
10. Julian Heicklen arrested for jury nullification pamphleting, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (2011).
⸻
Books to Check Out
• Lysander Spooner – An Essay on the Trial by Jury (1852)
Spooner lays out why jurors should judge both the law and the facts. Essential reading.
• Clay S. Conrad – Jury Nullification: The Evolution of a Doctrine (1998)
The best modern book on the topic. Deep dive into the legal history and suppression of jury rights.
• Paul Butler – Let’s Get Free: A Hip-Hop Theory of Justice (2009)
*Written by a former prosecutor, this book makes the case for using jury null
The Dred Scott decision (1857) is one of the most infamous Supreme Court rulings in U.S. history, and it proves exactly why jury nullification is so important. If juries had understood their God-given responsibility to judge righteously, Scott never would have been returned to slavery, regardless of what the courts said.
Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) – When the Law is Evil
For those who don’t know, Dred Scott was a slave who had been taken by his owner into free states, where slavery was illegal. He sued for his freedom, arguing that since he had lived in free states, he should be free. The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, ruled against him, declaring:
1. Black people were not U.S. citizens and had no rights the government was bound to respect.
2. Congress had no power to ban slavery in federal territories, invalidating the Missouri Compromise.
3. Scott had no right to even bring his case to court.
This decision wasn’t just unjust—it was evil.
If Jury Nullification Had Been Applied…
Here’s the thing: Dred Scott’s fate was decided by a judge—not a jury. The case went straight through the legal system, where it was handled entirely by judges who were part of the government machine.
But if this case had been in front of a jury, and that jury understood jury nullification, the outcome could have been very different.
• A jury could have refused to enforce the Fugitive Slave Laws.
• A jury could have recognized that God’s law supersedes man’s law and declared Scott a free man regardless of legal precedent.
• A jury could have rejected the argument that Black Americans had “no rights.”
Jury nullification had already been used in Fugitive Slave Act cases in the North, where jurors simply refused to convict people who helped escaped slaves. But because Dred Scott’s case was entirely in the hands of judges, there was no chance for the people to override the system.
The Supreme Court is NOT the Final Authority
The Dred Scott decision also shows why courts aren’t the ultimate standard of justice. The Bible says:
• Deuteronomy 16:19 – “Thou shalt not wrest judgment; thou shalt not respect persons, neither take a gift: for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words of the righteous.”
• Ecclesiastes 3:17 – “God shall judge the righteous and the wicked: for there is a time there for every purpose and for every work.”
A judge can rule wickedly, but that doesn’t make him right. The Supreme Court can pass down an unjust verdict, but that doesn’t make it just. God’s standard never changes.
Dred Scott is a prime example of why we should never assume the courts are righteous just because they have power. It’s also why jury nullification is a critical check against legal tyranny.
The Supreme Court upheld an unjust law. Had this gone before a fully informed jury, they could have done what the courts refused to do—judge righteously.
And that’s the entire point. The law is only just when it aligns with righteousness. When it doesn’t, it’s the duty of God-fearing men to stand against it.