Reading ComprehensionDifficulty: Easy

PT146 S4 P1 Q1 Explanation

Jury Nullification

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Reading Comprehension question.

TopicsInferenceLaw

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • Save & drill this skill build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Passage

Passage A Jury nullification occurs when the jury acquits the defendant in a criminal case in disregard of the judge’s instructions and contrary to the jury’s findings of fact. Sometimes a jury’s nullification decision is based on mercy for the defendant, sometimes on dislike for the victim. Juries have also sometimes nullified probably few, the problems created by the jury’s power to nullify are great.

First, we do not know how the power is used. Because juries are not required to and typically do not explain their verdicts, it is impossible to say how often nullification occurs. This means that we also do not for evil ends rather than for good ones.

Second, juries often have insufficient evidence to make a reasoned nullification decision. Evidence that might inform such a decision, such as a defendant’s past brushes with the law, usually is not admitted at trial technical question of guilt or innocence.

Third, jurors are not legislators. We have an elected legislature to pass laws and elected or appointed judges to interpret them. The jury is unelected, is unaccountable, and has no obligation acquittal will have on others.

Reasonable people can disagree on the proper reach of the criminal laws. Nevertheless, the place for them to disagree is in public, where the reasons for be scrutinized and debated.

Passage B Police and prosecutors have discretion to decide which violations of the law to pursue and which to overlook. Even with such discretion, however, these officials can sometimes be overzealous. In such cases, the jury can act as a safety valve and use its own discretion to decide, for example, too extenuating for the case to result in a conviction.

When a jury nullifies because it does not believe a law should be applied to a particular defendant, the jury can also be viewed as assisting the legislature. Legislatures create general laws both because they cannot foresee every variation that may arise, and because legislators often have competing views about what for broad language if any laws are to be passed.

Similarly, when a jury nullifies because it believes a law is unjust, it also performs a useful function vis-à-vis the legislature, namely indicating to the legislature that with the law in question.

It may happen that a jury will be persuaded to nullify by factors they should ignore, but such instances of nullification are likely to be uncommon. For a jury to agree to nullify means that the case for nullification must be so compelling that all twelve of nevertheless agree that nullification is the appropriate course of action.

What this question is testing

Inference

Your task

Find what must be true based on what the passage or stimulus states.

Common trap

Answers that are plausible or likely but not actually guaranteed by the text.

Winning move

Keep only the choice the statements fully support — eliminate anything that requires an extra assumption.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
1.

The author of passage B suggests that some laws justify the use of jury nullification because

Answer choices

  1. Unrelated to Goal6% picked this

    We can't match "complicated" with "overly broad" or "unjust", which are the only concepts the passage offered us.

  2. Unrelated to Goal3% picked this

    We can't match "antiquated" (i.e. old-fashioned / out of touch) with "overly broad" or "unjust", which are the only concepts the passage offered us.

  3. Unrelated to Goal2% picked this

    We can't match "permissive" (i.e. tolerant / forgiving) with "overly broad" or "unjust", which are the only concepts the passage offered us.

  4. Weak Match4% picked this

    We could try to match "intrusive" with "unjust", but they're definitely not synonyms. Being intrusive could be an unjust invasion of privacy, but it's a much more specific meaning than "unjust". An intrusive law means the law meddles too much in people's private affairs, and the author wasn't talking about anything like that.

  5. Correct84% picked this

    Why this is right

    We can match "general" with "overly broad". A generalization is a broad claim. The 2nd paragraph discussed how during the formulation of a law, the legislature "creates general laws both because they cannot foresee every variation and because they must settle for broad language if any laws are to be passed". Because the law is written too generally, it applies to more people than it truly should, and the jury exercises its discretion through nullification when it seems like even though the general language of a law applies to a certain defendant, that defendant was not part of the intent of the law.

    Skill tested: Inference · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free