•  
  •  
 

Buffalo Law Review

First Page

239

Document Type

Article

Abstract

Police violence in the United States occurs at an alarming rate. Enforcing federal criminal laws aimed at holding law enforcement officers accountable for their misconduct is difficult. Even where there is strong evidence of guilt, jurors often acquit officers rather than allow them to face criminal consequences for their actions. This Article examines suspected nullification verdicts in excessive force cases through the lens of an expansive body of research on juror and jury decision making. What emerges is the theory that nullification verdicts in excessive force cases are a function of the presence of one or more authoritarian jurors, the measure of gaps left in the prosecution’s story, and the degree to which jurors understand the power of nullification and its appropriate and inappropriate uses. Instructing juries in excessive force cases on nullification and advancing explicit anti-nullification arguments is one corrective measure that prosecutors could effectively employ to minimize wrongful acquittals of law enforcement officers. Excessive force juries should be told of their power to nullify and encouraged to wield that power only in the pursuit of a just verdict. Doing so will diminish the likelihood that law enforcement officers will be incorrectly acquitted where there is overwhelming evidence of guilt and will recalibrate the circumstances under which nullification is employed, that is, to function as a check on the abuse of government authority.

Download

Share

COinS