User:Former editor/Citizen's Rule Book

The Jay quote is genuine and it has been suggested that the Court did indeed hold that a jury must be instructed of its right to judge both the facts and the law, however it's cherry-picked greatly out of context. Justice Jay's actual intention was to direct the jury to defer to the court's better ability to judge questions of law:

It may not be amiss, here, Gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule, that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. On this, and on every other occasion, however, we have no doubt, you will pay that respect, which is due to the opinion of the court: For, as on the one hand, it is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumable, that the court are the best judges of law. But still both objects are lawfully, within your power of decision.

However, in United States v. Morris, 156 U.S. 51, 26. F. Cas. 1323 (Cir.Court D. Mass., 1851), Circuit Justice Curtis called Brailsford an anomaly, as Justice Jay purportedly instructed the jury that all facts were agreed to by the parties and that the court was agree as to the law. Justice Curtis noted his doubt that the quote was authentic, noting that If it be correctly reported, I can only say, it is not in accordance with the views of any other court, so far as I know, in this country or in England, and is certainly not in accordance with the course of the supreme court for many years.

Sparf v. United States appears to be the last time the Supreme Court addressed the problem of jury nullification. The Court held that a District Court did not err by directing a jury that the court was the exclusive finder of law and that the jury was to determine whether evidence established guilt according to that law announced by the court. Sparf, 156 U.S 51, 106 (1895).

Thus, in upholding a conviction rendered in a lower court that instructed the jury that announcing the law was the exclusive province of the court, it appears that a jury has no "right" as such to nullify.

There is no doubt that a jury has the power to nullify it is so difficult to detect. However there is some disagreement among courts whether a jury may nullify.