David SimsEssays

Jury Nullification


by David Sims

IN ANY criminal trial, jurors have a constitutional right to judge not only the defendant, but also the law itself. A jury might determine that a defendant is guilty of breaking a law, but refuse to convict him because they have also determined that the law that he broke is unjust, unreasonable, or unconstitutional.

That’s jury nullification. Every juror has the right to exercise it. Judges don’t tell them this, however. In fact, the US Supreme Court ruled in 1895 (in United States v Sparf) that jurors did not have the right to be informed that they had the power to nullify the law for the case they were hearing. Notice that the Court did NOT say that this right doesn’t exist (it does), but only that judges don’t have any obligation to tell them about it.

The American people should use their power to nullify laws if there is any doubt about their wisdom. Most of the laws are written to favor corporations, rich people, special interests, and, generally, the status quo of the currently powerful elites. But they haven’t gotten rid of jury nullification, which is just about the last potentially effective legal defense the people have. As we all should know by now, our elections are controlled.

If you are named as a juror, and you have any doubt at all regarding the ethics or the wisdom of the law that your defendant is said to have broken, then by all means inform your fellow jurors about jury nullification and why you believe it should be used in the case before you.

If a child is arrested for selling lemonade without a license, nullify the law under which the child was charged.

If your neighbor is arrested for growing vegetables in his front yard, nullify the law under which your neighbor was charged.

It’s simple. Nullifying unreasonable or unjust laws should not be a difficult thing to do. Don’t go with the herd mentality. Do it for your neighbor, the defendant, as you would have him do for you, if your place and his were reversed. Don’t listen to official bombast from the judge about what you “must” do. As a juror, you have the right to nullify laws, and, if there is any doubt about whether the law is moral and is wise, then nullifying it is exactly what you should do.

Jurors may never be punished for any verdict they return. If a judge tries to punish a jury for nullification, then the judge is breaking the law himself.

I think that a jury could legally go so far as to perform a few of Shakespeare’s plays in the courtroom, and, as long as they called it their “verdict,” they could get away with it.

So, of course, nullification is a perfectly legal thing for a jury to do.

“We, the jury, refuse to convict the defendant. We are nullifying the law under which he was charged. Some of us, during our deliberations, as we were considering the facts of the case, came to the opinion that the defendant would have been justified in breaking this law and so shouldn’t be punished even if he were guilty. Others of us believe that this particular law should never have existed in the first place. We refuse to convict the defendant, and that, Your Honor, is our verdict.”

* * *

Source: David Sims

Previous post

Replies to a White Racial Activist

Next post

Capitalism and Equality


  1. TS
    13 September, 2015 at 11:26 am — Reply

    If a juror comes up with the idea of nullifying the law, wouldn’t he be excused by the judge? Or, does a juror, once selected, have a free reign during the trial?

  2. Walt Hampton
    13 September, 2015 at 7:09 pm — Reply

    Ahem! Excuse me
    for saying this, but the concept of jury nullification is a bit
    like closing the barn door long after the horses have gotten out.
    Jury nullification may be great in an all-White society, but
    what is to become of a White defendant with a jury impaneled with
    Negroes, Mestizos, Mulattos, and other bipeds of indeterminate
    race? Seems like the author has misplaced the whole idea of
    “diversity” and “multiculturalism” which was (and is) to reduce
    Whites to the point of political impotence.

    David Kennison, the head of the now-defunct New Banner Institute,
    gave a speech a few years back on just this issue:


    At 28:05 Kennison speaks of “the great American experiment.”

    This experiment is a failure because, contrary to “Objectivism,”
    and the opinions of Miss Ayn Rand, race DOES exist. In fact,
    it was (and is) the fundamental divide in Simpson vs California.
    Negroes on a jury will always acquit a “bruther,” right or wrong.
    That, along with Jew money-power (the ability to pay off and/or
    bribe jurors) are tell-tale signs that the “great multi-racial-
    cultural experiment” that has become the USof A, is a total
    failure. A “fully informed jury” of Negroes will ALWAYS
    acquit a “bruther!”

    At 39:17, Kennison brings up his ancestor’s involvement in
    the ‘underground railroad.’ Does this infer that he is aware
    of the First Civil War and that the Yankee invasion of the
    Confederate States of America was somehow justified?
    Acknowledging his New England roots, draw your own
    conclusions. Perhaps he feels the same way about Bush II’s
    invasion of Iraq?

    At 49:10, is Kennison referring to Miss Sasha Owens? Quite
    a bit of local headlines generated in this (SC) area in 1986.

    At 1:18:50, Kennison seems to be confused about the concepts
    of “citizen” and person.”

    More about Kennison and the “multi-cultural” New Banner Institute
    can be found here:


    …and here…


  3. Thomas Plaster
    17 July, 2017 at 11:36 pm — Reply

    I do know that judges usually, I guess depending on jurisdiction, have the authority to set aside jury verdicts. I remember one such example when I was young of a state court judge doing it. I am sure they don’t make a habit of it.

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Slander, crude language, incivility, off-topic drift, or remarks that might harm National Vanguard or its users may be edited or deleted, even if unintentional. Comments may be edited for clarity or usage.