This is before an indictment is even filed. Jury nullification takes place at the trial deliberation stage, after arguments have been presented from both sides with a judge presiding. This is no where even there yet.
This is before an indictment is even filed. Jury nullification takes place at the trial deliberation stage, after arguments have been presented from both sides with a judge presiding. This is no where even there yet.
Why do you differentiate? If they are doing it solely because they believe the law should be ignored rather than basing the decision on the facts and laws, why should it matter what part of the process the jury is participating in?
> Why do you differentiate?
Because words mean things, and precision matters.
An actual jury nullification cannot be appealed, and the accused gets to go scot-free forever in that jurisdiction, even to prosecutor's chagrin. In this case, the prosecutor could gather another grand jury and try again, at any time, without restriction, if they so choose.
Buried lede is that this is someone's chance to coin a new term for "something that feels like jury nullification but isn't because it's a grand jury and the internet lawyers are being pedantic because they really don't like the idea of people being able to point at an honest-to-god case of jury nullification."
Because the law differentiates, not me. When the GJ does not return a True Bill it means that a jury of our peers believes there is insufficient evidence to charge someone with a crime.
That is a wholly different definition than jury nullification, where one or more members of the jury return a "not guilty" verdict because they reject the law or its application irrespective of the defendant's guilt.
The standard of proof differs. A GJ is not required to find a defendant guilty; instead, they must determine whether there is sufficient evidence to suggest the possibility of a crime. The subsequent proceedings will then determine the outcome.