Reading ComprehensionDifficulty: Easy

PT146 S4 P1 Q3 Explanation

Jury Nullification

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

TopicsAnalogyLaw

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

Analogy

Your task

Pin down exactly what the question asks about the passage — a detail, the author's view, the structure, or the main point — before looking at the choices.

Common trap

Answers that restate a true detail from the passage but don't answer the specific question being asked.

Winning move

Anticipate the answer in your own words from the passage, then find the choice that matches that prediction.

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

The question
3.

Based on what can be inferred from their titles, the relationship between the documents in which one of the following pairs is most analogous to the relationship between

Answer choices

  1. Trap1% picked this

    “Cameras in the Courtroom: A Perversion

    “The Pros and Cons of Televising

  2. Trap12% picked this

    “Cameras in the Courtroom: Three Central Issues in

    “The Unexpected Benefits of Permitting Cameras

  3. Correct86% picked this

    “The Inherent Dangers of Permitting Cameras

    “How Televising Courtroom Proceedings Can Assist

    Why this is right

    Answer C is correct.

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

  4. Trap1% picked this

    “The Troublesome History of Cameras in

    “The Laudable Motives Behind Televised Courtroom

  5. Trap0% picked this

    “Why Cameras Should Be Banned from

    “The Inevitability of Televised Courtroom

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