Article
Evidentiary Relevance, Morally Reasonable Verdicts, and Jury Nullification
Iowa Law Review
(2001)
Abstract
In Old Chief v. United States, the Supreme Court stated that evidence offered by the Government in a criminal case has “fair and legitimate weight” if it tends to show that a guilty verdict would be morally reasonable. This Article focuses on that proposition. First, it discusses the ways in which Old Chief’s analysis rests upon a broadened understanding of evidentiary relevance. Second, it argues that significant theoretical difficulties impede any effort to determine whether evidence tends to show that a guilty verdict would be morally reasonable. Third, it argues that adopting Old Chief’s conception of relevance would necessitate significant changes in the rules relating to jury nullification. Specifically, if a prosecutor were permitted to present evidence in part for the purpose of demonstrating that a guilty verdict would be morally reasonable, the defendant might be entitled to present evidence in part for the purpose of demonstrating that a guilty verdict would be morally unreasonable; the defendant would have a Fifth and Sixth Amendment right to argue, during his or her closing argument, that the Government’s evidence fails to show that it would be morally reasonable to convict; and the defendant would be entitled to a jury instruction that informs the jurors, at a minimum, that the Government’s evidence has been admitted in part for the purpose of persuading them that a guilty verdict would be morally reasonable.
Keywords
- jury nullification,
- relevance,
- morally reasonable,
- Old Chief
Disciplines
Publication Date
January, 2001
Citation Information
Todd E. Pettys. "Evidentiary Relevance, Morally Reasonable Verdicts, and Jury Nullification" Iowa Law Review Vol. 86 Iss. 2 (2001) Available at: http://works.bepress.com/todd_pettys/16/