Estrada

People v. Estrada

Good Law
141 Cal. App. 4th 408·2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 1078·2006 Daily Journal DAR 9255·46 Cal. Rptr. 3d 111·2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6375
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 14, 2006C047785California2,958 words

Opinion

Opinion

Scotland, J.

This case poses the question whether it is proper, during voir dire of prospective jurors, for a trial court to inform them that jurors have no legal authority to engage in what is known as “jury nullification,” and to solicit their assurances that, if chosen to serve as jurors, they will follow the law as stated to them by the court and not substitute their own views of what the law should be.

The answer is, “Yes.” As we will explain, although jurors have the “power” to engage in jury nullification, they have no legal authority to do so. “ ‘Nullification is, by definition, a violation of a juror’s oath to apply the law as instructed by the court. . . . We categorically reject the idea that, in a society committed to the rule of law, jury nullification is desirable or that courts may permit it to occur when it is within their authority to prevent.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Williams (2001) 25 Cal.4th 441, 460 [ 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 295 , 21 P.3d 1209 ], italics added (hereafter Williams).) Indeed, a juror who refuses to follow the court’s instructions on the law can be discharged from the jury because the person is “unable to perform his or her duty” as a juror. (Pen. Code, §…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.