Most states these days allow an attorney to discuss jury nullification with jurors, asking them to ignore the law and do what they think is right/fair/just. This is because so many laws are unfair!

But apparently judges in Massachusetts are not much interested in justice; attorneys in that state cannot raise the subject!

Excepts from the Article:

“It’s not only his right, but his duty, in that case, to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgement, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.”

~John Adams (1771)

For a Massachusetts criminal defense lawyer faced with nearly indisputable evidence of his client’s guilt, appealing to the jury’s sense of fairness may be his only hope of obtaining an acquittal. But, Massachusetts judges will not permit a criminal defense lawyer to argue “jury nullifcation.”

History of Jury Nullification
Jury nullification dates back to the Magna Carta, signed into law in 1215 by a reluctant King John of England who perceived it to be an unforgivable restraint on his unfettered power. The Magna Carta bestowed on the King’s subjects the right to be judged by a jury of his peers:

No free man shall be captured, and or imprisoned, or disseised of his freehold, and or of his liberties, or of his free customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or in any way destroyed, nor will we proceed against him by force or proceed against him by arms, but by the lawful judgment of his peers, and or by the law of the land.

The jury, essentially, represents the community at large. As citizens, jurors retain the community ethos – attitudes, beliefs, morals, and sense of fairness. Initially, “jurors were responsible only to their own consciences. They were completely free to return a verdict of their pleasure in accordance with what they thought right. The evidence was not binding upon them; the judge’s charge was not binding; nothing was. The law did not concern itself with the question of how they reached their verdict . . . . If a jury, moved by whim, mercy, sympathy, or pig­ headedness, refused to convict against all law and evidence, the prisoner was freed, and that was that.” Leonard W. Levy, The Palladium of Justice: Origins of Trial by Jury (Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 1999).

Those in power rarely long abide any limitation on their authority to enact, impose and enforce laws. By the mid 1600s, English judges were routinely fining and threatening juries with incarceration for failing to return a “proper” verdict. Edward Bushel, a member of a “rogue” jury, refused to pay his fine. The astonished trial judge raged at him, “[y]ou shall be locked up without meat, drink, fire, and tobacco. You shall not think thus to abuse the court; we will have a verdict, by the help of God, or you shall starve for it.” On appeal, Chief Justice Vaughan ruled in the Bushel’s Case that jurors could not be punished for their verdicts, thereby reestablishing juror independence.

Jury Nullfication in Massachusetts
For Massachusetts trial judges, the right of a jury to essentially nullify a law by acquitting a defendant is a power better left unacknowledged. Commonwealth v. Herbert, 379 Mass. 752, 755 (1980) (“it is improper for a juror to disregard the law as given by the judge, [but] it remains within the power of a juror to vote his conscience”). Indeed, Massachusetts judges refuse to instruct jurors that they are empowered to return a not guilty where the prosecution has proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. See, Commonwealth v. Fernette, 398 Mass. 658, 670 (1986) (acknowledging the right of a juror to vote his conscience, but declining to allow judges to so instruct juries).

Worse, judges refuse to allow Massachusetts criminal defense lawyers to inform juries of their rights to nullification or to introduce evidence at trial directed at the undermining the legitimacy of the prosecution, the injustice of a conviction, or the justness of an acquittal, or is otherwise designed to induce the jury to nullify, such as the length of a mandatory prison sentence. The goal of the Massachusetts judiciary is to blindfold jurors, preventing them from grasping the injustice of the verdicts the system requires of them or “subverting” the authority of judges to interpret and impose the laws. In short, our judiciary has reduced our jurors to returning verdicts based on evidence, rather than justice.

What is Jury Nullification?
The term jury nullification is misleading, suggesting that when jurors vote their consciences they nullify or invalidate the law enacted by legislative bodies. Jurors guided by more than the letter of the law do not invalidate a statute, they void the system’s persecution of a fellow citizen or avert the prosecution’s misapplication of the law.

[T]he function of the jury as the ultimate authority on the law [is] not to “nullify” the instructions of the judge, but to complete the law, when necessary, by recognizing principles of justification that go beyond the written law. It would be better if we abandoned the phrase “jury nullification” and spoke instead of the jury’s function in these cases of completing and perfecting the positive law recognized by the courts and the legislature.

~Professor George Fletcher

Today, the need for jury empowerment has never been greater as prosecutors, especially Federal prosecutors, indict law-abiding individuals for minor, often inconsequential, infractions of complex and confusing statutes. If the judiciary is too weak to reign in prosecutors, jurors must be allowed to fill the void. Nullification is a natural part of a community’s role in thwarting hyper-aggressive prosecutors from turning our criminal codes into traps for the unwary or a smorgasbord of opportunity for prosecutors to harass and punish the unpopular.

No Role for Mercy?
In its purest form, nullification may have little to do with usurping governmental authority. It may be simple compassion for the unfortunates in the crosshairs of prosecutors or mercy for an individual who, whatever his misdeeds or mistakes, warrants no further punishment, like a mother whose “criminal” negligence ended the life of her precious child. As a society, do we want to encourage or demand a single-minded adherence to laws? Are we better off without compassion for our fellow-man? Is that a world we want to live in? Is there no role in our criminal justice system for mercy?

The Whole Story:

Jury Nullification


Letter to the Editor – Massachusetts is Behind the Times! 1/11/19

Apparently, judges in Massachusetts are not much concerned about justice! They forbid an attorney to argue jury nullification to a trial jury. READ 

What is Jury Nullification? It is the powhecer of jurors to return a verdict of not guilty, or an acquittal, in criminal cased even though the state may have proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. They do this if they believe the law is unfair or it has been misapplied. Today, most states allow an attorney to inform the jurors of their ability to do this if he or she thinks it is appropriate. For example, think of the case where a Mom takes her child from the Dad, where there is no custody order, and the state charges her with kidnapping! Or the case where a man happens upon the scene of an accident and buys from a passenger of one of the vehicles a bag with less than an ounce of Pot lying in the road, because he knows it will help his excruciating back pain, but his state has not yet approved medical marijuana.

I have been immersed in criminal justice issues for the past 45 years, and I am old enough to remember when it worked well.  Not any more. I have had more than 700 trials, on both sides – prosecutor and defense attorney. Today the whole criminal justice system is a train wreck, and jury nullification is a hot topic.

It is shocking that Massachusetts judges care so little about fairness, and the law should be changed to correct this failure! Allow attorneys to inform the jurors that they may “do the right thing”!

Ken Abraham, Deputy Attorney General 1974-1979, founder of Citizens for Criminal JUSTICE, Dover, DE 302-423-4067


I get lots of letters published, and ghost write for others. THIS IS THE BEST WAY TO REACH THOUSANDS OF READERS! The keys to getting your Letter published are:
1. Keep it to 250 words or fewer.
2. Do not make it about “poor little old me”. Describe the problem as one which not only affects the individual, but is a senseless or ineffective measure, policy, or law which also harms communities and society. For example, with reentry, the obstacles make it unnecessarily difficult for the individual, but also harm society by making it hard to become productive, spending money and paying taxes in the community, and they cause increased recidivism = increased crime.
3. Speak from your heart.
4. Google any facts you are not sure about.
5. Do not name-call.
Do what works: Write that Letter!
Letter to Editor – sign name, town, state, and your phone number (they often call to verify that you sent it), and “Member of Citizens for Criminal JUSTICE” if you like – shows you are part of a large group.
Send the email to yourself, and put on the “bcc” bar the email addresses for Letters to the Editor for the top ten newspapers in your state and several national ones – The New York Times, Chicago Tribune, U S A Today (google the Letter to Editor email addresses). Any questions, CALL me at 302-423-4067!
GOOGLE THE EMAIL ADDRESSES FOR “LETTERS TO THE EDITOR” FOR THE TOP TEN NEWSPAPERS IN YOUR STATE AND SAVE THAT INFORMATION FOR REPEATED USE – Some papers will print a letter from you every 2 weeks, some every 30 days, some every 90 days. They have varying policies. But if you really want to make a difference shoot them a new letter once a month! I send one out every 2 weeks.
Need a Letter on some criminal justice issue and not a great letter writer? NO EXCUSE! Email me a rough draft and call me and I’ll polish it up! .