We All Lose When Judges Overreach

Fearful that more and more citizens are becoming aware of the doctrine of jury nullification--in which jurors reach a decision based on their own values rather than the law--judges have started policing jury trials with greater assertiveness than in years past. This year, the California Supreme Court will decide whether a trial court violated a defendant's right to trial by jury by dismissing a deliberating juror because that juror did not intend to follow the law on a particular charge.

The case, People vs. Williams, raises the question of how far a trial judge can go before a jury verdict is deemed to be coerced by the bench. Arashiek Williams, 18, was charged with committing numerous crimes, including rape, against his former girlfriend. At trial, the young woman testified that she was compelled to engage in sexual intercourse because of Williams' use of force and threats. Williams took the stand and testified that the two had engaged in consensual intercourse. Because Williams admitted to having had sexual relations, the trial judge decided to instruct the jury on the offense of statutory rape, since the woman was only 15 years old at the time. Shortly after the jury retired to deliberate on guilt or innocence, the foreperson sent a note to the trial court complaining that one of the jurors believed the statutory rape count was unjust. The trial judge asked the juror if he was having difficulty with the court's legal instructions. The juror said he was willing to follow the court's instructions pertaining to the various charges but that he had some qualms about the statutory rape offense. The juror said that he could not condemn "a young man for the rest of his life for what I believe to be a wrong reason."

Finding that belief to be unsatisfactory, the trial judge discharged the "holdout" juror and replaced him with an alternate juror. No one was surprised when the jury later announced its "guilty" verdict on the statutory rape count.

The issue that is now pending before the state Supreme Court is whether the trial judge's interference with the jury's deliberations violated Williams' constitutional rights. A proper legal analysis of a trial judge's authority in such circumstances should begin with first principles. The 6th Amendment provides, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury."