Court of Appeals of Maryland Finds Jury Nullification is Not Authorized & That Judges Must Tell Jurors They Cannot Nullify
In State v. Sayles, 2021 WL 302807 (Md. 2021), the Court of Appeals of Maryland addressed
a matter of first impression the question of whether a jury in Maryland has the authority to engage in jury nullification and whether, in responding to questions from a jury, the trial court correctly instructed the jury, among other things, that it was not authorized to engage in nullification and that doing so would violate the jury’s oath.
So, how did the court rule?
In Sayles, the defendants were “each charged with forty-two offenses, including home invasion, armed robbery, kidnapping, first- and second-degree assault, false imprisonment, burglary, motor vehicle theft, fourth-degree sexual offense, and multiple conspiracy offenses.” During deliberations, the jurors sent the judge three notes about jury nullification, with the third note asking:
Why is there is a legal definition of jury nullification where a juror can refuse to apply the law if there is no legal circumstances where that can occur? Can you please cite the specific law that does not allow a juror the right to jury nullification in the state of Maryland?
The judge responded to this third note by telling the jury:
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury you may not use, implement or resort to jury nullification. It is improper, it’s contrary to the law [and] would be a violation of your oath to truly try and reach a verdict according to the evidence, which you all took that oath. Furthermore, nullification would violate this Court’s order and it’s the law of Maryland that “you must apply the laws I explained it in arriving at your verdict,” sincerely me. I’ll give you a copy of that.
In finding that this instruction was proper on appeal, the Court of Appeals of Maryland ruled as follows:
Here, we unequivocally hold that, despite the circumstance—and our recognition—that jury nullification sometimes occurs, jury nullification is not authorized in Maryland and a jury does not have the right to engage in jury nullification. Indeed, no case, statute, or rule in Maryland authorizes or gives juries the right to engage in jury nullification, i.e., there is no grant of authority permitting a jury to nullify. Instead, Maryland case law makes plain that it is improper for an attorney to argue jury nullification to a jury, and that jury instructions about the law are binding and that trial courts advise juries as much. When requested, during voir dire, a trial court must ask whether any prospective jurors would be unwilling or unable to comply with the jury instructions on specific fundamental principles. Moreover, a verdict achieved via jury nullification is akin to the return of legally inconsistent verdicts in that a jury acts contrary to a trial court’s instructions as to the proper application of the law and in both instances that is impermissible. Collectively, these principles of law lead to the conclusion that jury nullification is not a practice that is authorized in Maryland.
Finally, at the end of its opinion, the court gave
guidance to trial courts on how to handle questions from a jury about jury nullification. When asked whether a jury may engage in jury nullification, a trial court should respond in much the same manner that the circuit court in this case responded to the first note about jury nullification—by advising the jury that its verdict must be based solely on the evidence, that the jury should reread the instructions previously provided, and that, based on the evidence, the jury should return a verdict of not guilty or guilty. But, if asked specifically whether there is authority or the right to engage in jury nullification in Maryland, a trial court must respond in the negative and advise that jury nullification is not authorized, i.e., that a jury does not have the right to engage in jury nullification, and explain that there is no authority for the jury to decide the case on a basis other than the evidence presented and the law as instructed. That is exactly what the circuit court here did. We conclude that the circuit court correctly responded to the jury notes about jury nullification and the circuit court’s instructions were not coercive or otherwise prejudicial.