How can a jury know about jury nullification? It appears that jurors are not allowed to be told that they can ignore the law and thus use their right of jury nullification. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification#Canada The contrary principle contended for by Mr. Manning, that a jury may be encouraged to ignore a law it does not like, could lead to gross inequities. One accused could be convicted by a jury who supported the existing law, while another person indicted for the same offence could be acquitted by a jury who, with reformist zeal, wished to express disapproval of the same law. … But recognizing this reality is a far cry from suggesting that counsel may encourage a jury to ignore a law they do not support or to tell a jury that it has a right to do so. Since they're apparently still allowed to use this right, only not be explicitly instructed in court that they can use it, doesn't it produce the very problem mentioned above by Mr. Manning? I.e., in any particular trial one juror may have prior knowledge of the right of nullification, in which case the jury may use it; while all other juries will carry out their obligation ignorant of it.
Jurors don't have a "right" to jury nullification per-se. The "right" of jury nullification is really just a logical consequence of other rights that the jury and the defendant have The American jury draws its power of nullification from its right to render a general verdict in criminal trials, the inability of criminal courts to direct a verdict no matter how strong the evidence, the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause, which prohibits the appeal of an acquittal,[2] and the fact that jurors can never be punished for the verdict they return. In fact, the court doesn't want juries to nullify, because that undermines the rule of law, and they might penalize lawyers tho try to argue for nullification The 1895 decision in Sparf v. U.S.,[24] written by Justice John Marshall Harlan held that a trial judge has no responsibility to inform the jury of the right to nullify laws. It was a 5-4 decision. This decision, often cited, has led to a common practice by United States judges to penalize anyone who attempts to present legal argument to jurors and to declare a mistrial if such argument has been presented to them. In some states, jurors are likely to be struck from the panel during voir dire if they will not agree to accept as correct the rulings and instructions of the law as provided by the judge.[25] Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification_in_the_United_States As far as how would juror's know about jury nullification, they could have read about the process before being selected for jury duty. Some Juries might also rule contrary to their instructions without actually having heard about jury nullification because they have some sort of sympathy with the defendant.
So I'm fascinated with the OJ trial and I've read a ton about it. I'll try to answer your question both accepting your premise as true, and then also going into what actually happened. First of all, jury nullification cannot be overturned in the US. The double jeopardy clause forbids it. This is such a powerful tool, in fact, that there are strict rules that prevent defense lawyers from mentioning or even hinting at jury nullification, in front of the jury, in almost all circumstances. It doesn't mean D is safe from all legal liability. OJ, obviously, was found liable in the civil trial. Sometimes other jurisdictions can prosecute. For example, after the officers in the Rodney King beating were acquitted in state court, the federal government got them for violating federal hate crime statutes. Second, looking at your premise. If jurors think D is guilty, but also being framed, that's not necessarily jury nullification. Remember, a criminal defendant must be proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That means that 'probably guilty' means 'not guilty.' That said, there may be times when a jury is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of a defendant's guilt, but is so disgusted by the police tactics used in the case that they acquit. This would be jury nullification. What actually happened in the OJ case: Mark Fuhrman perjured himself on the stand. He lied and said he'd never said the N word, and the defense produced tapes of him saying it a ton. The defense recalled him to the stand. Because perjury is a serious crime, this time he came in with his own defense lawyer, and did nothing but take the fifth on the stand. In a genius move, OJ's defense team asked him whether he planted any evidence in the OJ case. He didn't deny it, instead he took the fifth (again, as he was doing to every question). This was enough to sow reasonable doubt about OJ's guilt based on the evidence in that trial (there's obviously no actual doubt, in real life, that he's guilty). So, what actually happened wasn't jury nullification.
If the question asks, "did you do X" where X is or includes a crime that you could be criminally prosecuted for, you can invoke the 5th amendment in refusing to answer that. I have seen that done and seen that objection to the question sustained in court. However, if admitting to X would provide only civil liability, then the 5th would not apply. At trial, you may also have to take care not to give direct testimony on things that are so closely related that you "open the door" to being required to answer that question. For example, you can't say "I don't owe because I did X" and then expect to not have to answer "So just to be clear, did you do X?" Also, depending on context, invoking the 5th might cause a jury to view your testimony more skeptically (cpast points out that "For civil cases, adverse inferences based on pleading the fifth are totally okay"), and if that's going to come up you should ask your attorney about whether or not it'd be a good idea strategically.
The United States gives the accused the right to a fair trial. However, it also gives exceptionally strong protection to the media (and to people in general) to speak on matters of public concern; there are very, very few cases where a US government (federal, state, or local) can legally order someone not to publish something (as opposed to letting it be published and then issuing sanctions). The rule of thumb for content-based restrictions on speech is that they must be the least restrictive way of achieving a compelling government interest. For trials, there are other ways to achieve a fair trial without restricting the press. One of the most preferred ways to do it is to use the voir dire process, in which jurors can be rejected for prejudice. Courts can also move the trial to a new location; they can grant motions from the defense to delay the trial while things cool down; they can sequester the jurors (meaning that the jurors are kept in a central place and prevented from talking to anyone else or reading anything about the case); if none of these are done, a conviction can potentially be reversed on appeal. US courts will, wherever possible, modify the trial to mitigate the damage done by the press, rather than restrict the press to mitigate the damage to the trial. For a review of a few different approaches to this in different jurisdictions, you might want to look at this law journal article.
In the United States, the constitutionality of a law can be challenged in any court. Unless and until the court is reversed by a higher court, then the law will be considered unconstitutional and invalid. A jury can also theoretically nullify a law for any reason, including unconstitutionality, however, the jury's finding will only hold for that one case that they are trying.
To know a defendant is guilty is to know that the government has convinced a judge or jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed all the elements of a crime. A lawyer can't know that the government will accomplish this prior to a trial. Options for a lawyer who determines that the government has a strong case include: seeking to have evidence excluded looking for other grounds for appeals establishing affirmative defenses negotiating a plea deal for a lighter sentence or less serious crime the lawyer will continue to force the government to prove their case
With only prosecutor(s) and a court reporter, are jurors at all instructed to not simply &quot;rubber stamp&quot; the prosecution's desire to indict? Not really. They are told their job and the legal standards that they are required to act according to, however, and the federal judicial branch does have a short handbook for grand jurors. Are the terms and concepts necessary for them to function as a jury (e.g. &quot;preponderance of evidence&quot;) explained to them? Yes. But grand juries don't operate on a preponderance of the evidence standard. The sole evidentiary standard in a grand jury proceeding is the lower &quot;probable cause&quot; standard. Likewise, lots of evidence which would not be admissible in a criminal trial is admissible in a grand jury proceeding. The main kind of evidence not admissible in a grand jury proceeding is evidence which is &quot;privileged&quot; against court disclosure (e.g. attorney-client communications). If so, by who? The prosecutor and the handbook linked above. Is there a standard &quot;script&quot; or talking points for such instruction? Prosecuting attorney's offices in jurisdictions that usually use grand juries typically have a set of forms. In federal practice, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6 is the primary source of guidance, and the Justice Department (which handles all or virtually all federal criminal prosecutions) has detailed policies and procedures for handling grand jury practice (and a 405 page practice manual) that his a matter of public record. There is some case law on what the content of an indictment must look like and on the grand jury process. Some state and local jurisdictions with routine use of grand juries probably have standard court forms for certain parts of grand jury process, and there may be some standard forms in local rules for some federal courts. But there isn't a national judicial branch sanctioned official set of court forms for grand juries in the federal criminal justice system. The rather lax supervision of grand juries reflects the fact that they are a road bump in the criminal justice process with a pretty low threshold to meet that faces sterner tests later in the process: Is there probable cause to support the charges requested by the prosecutor against the named defendants? About half of U.S. states allow prosecutors to do this without a grand jury approval, unilaterally. Every grand jury indictment must either be consented to by the defense, or approved by the court following a trial with a much higher proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard, to result in a conviction resulting in the imposition of punishment. A judge in a separate hearing determines if there will be pre-trial detention or bail conditions prior to the criminal trial.
In a trial by judge (bench trial) that could certainly happen. Most substantial parts of the judicial process can be sealed, under numerous laws and theories. The U.S. FISA "Court" is notorious for operating virtually entirely in secret. Various laws allow for secret subpoenas or warrants, with the subjects on which they are served held criminally liable for violating the court's order for secrecy. In a trial by jury it would probably be impossible for an exonerating fact to be presented to the judge only, since the proper role of the jury is to decide all questions of fact in a case. Furthermore, a court can compel a witness to testify, with no requirement to mitigate the damages of such testimony. However, if the accused knew that an exculpatory fact could be provided by a witness, and that the witness might decline to give (honest) testimony to a jury, he would presumably waive his right to a jury trial, at which point the testimony could (in theory) be given only to the judge.