United States v. Dougherty
Encyclopedia
United States v. Dougherty was a 1972 decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in which the court ruled that members of the D.C. Nine
, who had broken into Dow Chemical Company
, vandalized office furniture and equipment, and spilled about a bloodlike substance, were not entitled to a new trial on the basis of the judge's failing to allow a jury nullification
jury instruction. The Appeals Court ruled, by a 2-1 vote:
Nonetheless, the defendants were given a new trial on the grounds that they had been denied their right of self-representation. The Circuit Judges' assumption that jurors know about their nullification prerogative has since been brought into question by other empirical evidence. According to Irwin Horowitz, "Beyond the empirical issue, lack of nullification instructions maintains a deceit. After all, juries can nullify, but they know this fact only on a sotto voce
level."
D.C. Nine
The D.C. Nine were nine men and women, including seven who were priests and nuns, who engaged in a daytime protest against the Dow Chemical Company and its production of napalm and were charged with malicious destruction of property and burglary. They attempted to present a political defense, but...
, who had broken into Dow Chemical Company
Dow Chemical Company
The Dow Chemical Company is a multinational corporation headquartered in Midland, Michigan, United States. As of 2007, it is the second largest chemical manufacturer in the world by revenue and as of February 2009, the third-largest chemical company in the world by market capitalization .Dow...
, vandalized office furniture and equipment, and spilled about a bloodlike substance, were not entitled to a new trial on the basis of the judge's failing to allow a jury nullification
Jury nullification
Jury nullification occurs in a trial when a jury reaches a verdict contrary to the judge's instructions as to the law.A jury verdict contrary to the letter of the law pertains only to the particular case before it; however, if a pattern of acquittals develops in response to repeated attempts to...
jury instruction. The Appeals Court ruled, by a 2-1 vote:
Nonetheless, the defendants were given a new trial on the grounds that they had been denied their right of self-representation. The Circuit Judges' assumption that jurors know about their nullification prerogative has since been brought into question by other empirical evidence. According to Irwin Horowitz, "Beyond the empirical issue, lack of nullification instructions maintains a deceit. After all, juries can nullify, but they know this fact only on a sotto voce
Sotto voce
Sotto voce means intentionally lowering one's voice for emphasis. The speaker gives the impression of uttering involuntarily a truth which may surprise, shock, or offend...
level."