State v. Ragland (pg. 19)
Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1986
Author: Secret Helper

Facts:  The defendant was a felon and now he was charged with robbery and possession of a weapon.  The trial judge gave the jury instructions that if they find that the defendant had the weapon during the robbery “you must find him guilty of the possession charge.”  The defendant argued that the use of the word “must” deprives the defendant of his constitutional rights because it does not inform the juries that they have the “jury nullification” power.  The defendant argued that the judge should have informed that jury that they possess such power.

Procedure:  The defendant was convicted at the trail court level.

Issue:  1. Does a judge have to inform the jury of its nullification power? 2. Did the usage of the word “must” deprived the defendant of his constitutional rights?

Holding: 1. No 2. No

Rationale:  The judge believed that the nullification power of the jury is not a positive feature of our system that needs to be advertised. The fact that juries can nullify even after the prosecutor proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is not a great positive feature of our system. The usage of the word “may” like the defendant proposes will send wrong signal to the juries.  If a person is being charged under a disliked law, it is the duty of the legislature to amend that law and not the job of the jury to completely disregard that law.

My Thoughts: I didn’t even know that the juries had this power. Actually I do agree with the ruling of this court because nullification is not a positive feature of our system.  If I am on a jury, I would be highly troubled if the judge instructs me that if I find guilt proven beyond a reasonable doubt, I “may” find the defendant guilty.