244 A.3d 1139
Md.2021Background
- Three defendants (Sayles, Johnson, Oxely) were tried jointly for home invasion, armed robbery, kidnapping, and related offenses; jury returned multiple guilty verdicts and substantial prison sentences.
- During deliberations the jury sent three notes asking whether it had a right to "use jury nullification," prompting the trial court to (1) tell jurors to base verdicts on evidence and reread instructions, (2) define nullification as a knowing refusal to apply law and say it was not permitted, and (3) tell jurors nullification would violate their oath and the court’s order and that they must apply the law as instructed.
- The Court of Special Appeals reversed, holding a jury has the power to nullify and that the trial court’s second and third responses were legally incorrect and prejudicial.
- The State appealed to the Maryland Court of Appeals, which granted certiorari and consolidated the cases for briefing and argument.
- The Court of Appeals held, as a matter of first impression, that jury nullification is not authorized in Maryland, the trial court’s supplemental instructions were lawful and non-prejudicial, and reversed the Court of Special Appeals.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Respondents' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Maryland jury has a right to engage in jury nullification | No; no case, statute, or rule grants juries authority to nullify; courts must give binding law instructions | Juries retain the power to nullify; the Court never expressly prohibited juror nullification and the power remains | Court of Appeals: juries may have the ability to nullify in practice, but no right or authorization exists under Maryland law; nullification is not authorized |
| Whether the circuit court abused discretion by instructing jurors they could not nullify | Trial court correctly instructed jurors to apply law as given; telling jurors nullification is impermissible is proper | Instruction misstated the law by saying jurors "cannot" nullify and by suggesting legal consequences | No abuse: supplemental instructions accurately stated law, defined nullification, and emphasized jurors must apply law and evidence |
| Whether the supplemental instructions were prejudicial/coercive requiring a new trial | No; instructions were accurate, non-coercive, and the jury continued deliberating over 24+ hours before verdict | Yes; telling jurors nullification violates oath/ court order could chill dissent and coerce verdicts | No prejudice: instructions did not threaten punishment, were addressed to the whole jury, and did not coerce the verdict |
| What guidance should courts follow when jurors ask about nullification | Trial courts may and should reiterate binding nature of law and evidence, and must say nullification is not authorized if asked about legal authority | N/A | Guidance: initially tell jurors to base verdict on evidence and reread instructions; if asked about authority, state Maryland does not authorize nullification and jurors must apply law as instructed |
Key Cases Cited
- Sparf v. United States, 156 U.S. 51 (1895) (Supreme Court: juries have physical power but not moral right to decide law; judges must instruct on law)
- United States v. Thomas, 116 F.3d 606 (2d Cir. 1997) (deliberations secrecy enables nullification; nullification is intentional disregard of judge’s law and a violation of juror oath)
- United States v. Drefke, 707 F.2d 978 (8th Cir. 1983) (federal courts uniformly permit judges to instruct law and disallow nullification instructions)
- United States v. Sepulveda, 15 F.3d 1161 (1st Cir. 1993) (jurors possess raw power to acquit but duty is to apply law as instructed; courts should not encourage nullification)
- Chambers v. State, 337 Md. 44 (Md. 1994) (Maryland Court acknowledged juries sometimes can nullify but did not approve or authorize the practice)
- Blackwell v. State, 278 Md. 466 (Md. 1976) (improper for counsel to urge jury to disregard law; counsel may not encourage nullification)
- McNeal v. State, 426 Md. 455 (Md. 2012) (legally inconsistent verdicts impermissible; jury must not act contrary to judge’s instructions on law)
- Kazadi v. State, 467 Md. 1 (Md. 2020) (on request, voir dire must ask whether prospective jurors can follow fundamental instructions like presumption of innocence and burden of proof)