Reading ComprehensionDifficulty: Medium

PT146 S4 P1 Q4 Explanation

Jury Nullification

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

TopicsAuthor OpinionLaw

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

Author Opinion

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
4.

The authors of the passages would be most likely to disagree

Answer choices

  1. Both Positions Unsupported6% picked this

    juries should be more forthcoming about the reasoning behind

    Passage A comes close to agreeing with this when he says, Because juries are not required to and typically do not explain their verdicts, it's impossible to say how often nullification occurs. This wasn't the author saying, "Juries should be required or encouraged to explain their verdicts more". He was just saying, "Since they don't need to explain their reasoning, it makes jury nullification too secretive of a decision making outcome." We definitely can't find anything in Passage B that sounds like "juries should not be more forthcoming about their reasoning".

  2. Unsupported Disagree Position6% picked this

    laws are subject to scrutiny and debate by

    This is such a mild and generic claim that it's unlikely anyone would disagree with it. This language sounds more like stuff Passage A said, so we'd be asking ourselves, "Did Passage B ever say that laws are not subject to scrutiny or debate by reasonable people?" But Passage B didn't say anything resembling that.

  3. Both Positions Unsupported7% picked this

    it is likely that elected officials are more biased in their decision making

    Neither author compares elected officials vs. jurors in terms of who is more biased. The concept of 'bias' appears in neither passage.

  4. Correct80% picked this

    it is within the purview of juries not only to apply the law but

    Why this is right

    Passage A disagrees with this: Jurors are not legislators. We have an elected legislature to pass laws and elected or appointed judges to interpret them. Thus, he does not think that juries have any business interpreting the law. Passage B would agree with this, but the support is more nebulous. In the 2nd paragraph, the author is explaining how jury nullification helps assist the legislative process. Legislatures cannot foresee every variation that may arise. Legislators often have competing views about what should be included in legislation and so must settle for broad language if any laws are to be passed. The idea here is that juries are assisting legislatures by interpreting the overly general/broad language of the law on a case-by-case basis to see whether it should apply to a specific defendant.

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

  5. Both Positions Unsupported1% picked this

    police and prosecutors should have less discretion to decide which violations of the

    Passage A never talks about police / prosecutors at all. Passage B mentions that they have discretion to decide which violations of the law to pursue or to overlook. She never suggests that there should be a change to the amount of discretion.

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