Reading ComprehensionDifficulty: Hard

PT146 S4 P1 Q5 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
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

Answer choices

  1. Unsupported Objection4% picked this

    Prosecutors rarely bring cases to trial that they regard

    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.

  2. Unsupported Objection2% picked this

    Prosecutors are unlikely to present a case in a manner that makes it appear trivial

    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?

  3. Unsupported Objection3% picked this

    The members of a jury are unlikely to be in accord in their evaluation of

    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!

  4. Unsupported: insufficient expertise28% picked this

    Jurors may not have sufficient expertise to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses

    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.

  5. Correct63% picked this

    Jurors may not be aware of all the reasons why a case was brought

    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.

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