Reading Comprehension

PT146 · S4 · P1 · Q4 Jury Nullification

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

  • 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

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.

Topic

Jury nullification: what it is, potential pros, and cons

Framework

Present Debate

Main Point

The two passages present contrasting opinions on jury nullification: Passage A focuses on its dangers and the problems it creates, while Passage B highlights its benefits as a check against rigid or unjust application of the law.

The Most Valuable Sentence for Passage A: (End of A, P1) The Most Valuable Sentence for Passage B: (B, P3)

Passage A: Argument Against Jury Nullification

P1: Definition and Problem Introduction Jury nullification means a jury acquits even though the law and facts say otherwise. Sometimes they show mercy, sometimes they're biased. The author says the power might not be used often, but it's still very problematic.

P2: Unknown Use and Accountability We can't even track how often jury nullification happens, or if it's being abused, because juries don't have to explain themselves.

P3: Lack of Necessary Information Juries might not have all the relevant info, like a defendant's past, since that's not usually admitted at trial, so they could make poorly informed decisions when they nullify.

P4: Juries Not Suited to Lawmaking Juries are not elected to shape laws or evaluate their impact—they aren't accountable to the public the way legislators and judges are.

P5: Disagreements Belong Elsewhere Law changes and debates should happen in public, through legislators, not in secret through jury verdicts.

Passage B: Argument in Favor of Jury Nullification

P1: Juries as a Safety Valve Police and prosecutors get to pick which laws to enforce, but sometimes they're too strict—juries can step in and soften the edges for minor or exceptional cases.

P2: Juries Help Adjust the Law to Real Life When a jury nullifies because it thinks the law shouldn’t apply in a real situation, it is actually helping legislatures who can’t predict every scenario when writing laws.

P3: Feedback for Lawmaking Jury nullification can send a signal to lawmakers that a law may be unjust or needs rethinking.

P4: Abuse Is Rare Due to Consensus Requirement Sure, sometimes nullification happens for wrong reasons, but that’s rare since all twelve jurors have to agree to nullify—a high bar.

Summary of the Debate

Passage A warns that jury nullification is dangerous and secretive, risking unfair and uninformed decisions, and steps on the proper role of the legislature. Passage B, on the other hand, says jury nullification is an important tool: it allows for mercy, corrects for rigid law enforcement, gives feedback to lawmakers, and is unlikely to be abused because juries rarely reach unanimous agreement to nullify unless the case is compelling.

4.

The authors of the passages would be most likely to disagree over whether

  1. juries should be more forthcoming

    Both Positions Unsupported

    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".

    5% picked this

  2. laws are subject to scrutiny

    Unsupported Disagree Position

    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.

    6% picked this

  3. it is likely that elected

    Both Positions Unsupported

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

    7% picked this

  4. Correct

    it is within the purview

    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.

    81% picked this

  5. police and prosecutors should have

    Both Positions Unsupported

    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.

    1% picked this

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