Reading Comprehension

PT146 · S4 · P1 · Q5 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.

5.

Which one of the following is a criticism that the author of passage A would be likely to offer regarding the suggestion in passage B that juries are justified in nullifying when they view a case as too trivial to result in a conviction?

  1. Prosecutors rarely bring cases to

    Unsupported Objection

    This doesn't hit any of the big 3 reasons that Passage A offers to object to jury nullification. He never says, "They shouldn't do it because it's rarely the case that they need to do it." This is also just a bad objection regardless, because it dodges the issue. Passage B is saying, "if a case seems too trivial, the jury may nullify". Responding that cases are rarely trivial doesn't address what we should do in those rare cases where it is trivial.

    4% picked this

  2. Prosecutors are unlikely to present

    Unsupported Objection

    This is functionally the same as (A). This doesn't hit any of the big 3 reasons that Passage A offers to object to jury nullification. And it also dodges the issue. Sure, they're unlikely to present a case in a way that seem trivial. But it's not never. So in those cases where the prosecution does bring a trivial suit or does present a case in a manner that makes it appear trivial, is there some objection to letting the jury nullify?

    2% picked this

  3. The members of a jury

    Unsupported Objection

    This doesn't hit any of the big 3 reasons that Passage A offers to object to jury nullification. And again it's not actually objecting to jury nullification, it's just trying to deny that jury nullification for a case being too trivial won't happen. We're looking for an answer that would argue that it shouldn't happen. Just like (A) and (B), this answer describes a factor that would prevent the jury from ever getting to a point of thinking, "We all agree this is trivial. Should we nullify?" (A) - the case brought to trial usually wasn't trivial (B) - the case usually wasn't presented in a trivial way (C) - the jurors usually won't agree it's trivial Sure, but what about when it is a trivial case and the jurors do all agree that it's trivial!

    3% picked this

  4. Jurors may not have sufficient

    Unsupported: insufficient expertise

    This finally sounds like a potential objection to jury nullification, but it's not one the author made. The author's big 3 reasons were "insufficient evidence / don't have to explain verdict / not legislators". This objection also seems targeted at whether a juror can accurately determine guilt / innocence based on the merits of the evidence. But jury nullification is a moment when the jury has already decided that the case is strong enough to convict, but they don't want to convict.

    28% picked this

  5. Correct

    Jurors may not be aware

    Why this is right

    This matches the 2nd of Passage A's big 3 objections. The 3rd paragraph of A begins by saying "Juries often have insufficient evidence to make a reasoned nullification decision, such as the defendant's past brushes with the law". This is essentially the Al Capone idea. You might have a mob boss who's being brought to trial with "trivial" tax evasion charges. Even if those specific charges are trivial, the jury shouldn't be nullifying the case, denying us our best legal hopes of thwarting a career criminal.

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

    63% 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