Sparf v. United States
Encyclopedia
Sparf v. United States, 156 U.S. 51
(1894), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States
held that federal judge
s were not required to inform jurors of their inherent ability to judge the law in a case. The decision asserted that the court could mislead jurors and inform them that they could only judge the facts in bringing a general verdict. The decision was rendered by a five to four judge margin, with two strong dissenting opinions. The case distinguished itself from earlier precedent in Georgia v. Brailsford (1794)
mandating that jurors be informed by the court of their right to judge the case's facts and law (jury nullification
).
The case has occasionally been simplistically described as: Since the law has no way to prevent the jury from judging the law, they shall have that right, but only if they know it.
Three states did inform jurors of their full rights. These states were Georgia, Maryland, and Indiana.
Case citation
Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a 'neutral' form which will identify a decision wherever it was reported...
(1894), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States
Supreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all state and federal courts, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases...
held that federal judge
Judge
A judge is a person who presides over court proceedings, either alone or as part of a panel of judges. The powers, functions, method of appointment, discipline, and training of judges vary widely across different jurisdictions. The judge is supposed to conduct the trial impartially and in an open...
s were not required to inform jurors of their inherent ability to judge the law in a case. The decision asserted that the court could mislead jurors and inform them that they could only judge the facts in bringing a general verdict. The decision was rendered by a five to four judge margin, with two strong dissenting opinions. The case distinguished itself from earlier precedent in Georgia v. Brailsford (1794)
Georgia v. Brailsford (1794)
Georgia v. Brailsford 3 U.S. 1 is an early United States Supreme Court case where the presiding judge of the Court instructed the jury, in part, that a jury has a right to judge the law as well as the facts...
mandating that jurors be informed by the court of their right to judge the case's facts and law (jury nullification
Jury nullification
Jury nullification occurs in a trial when a jury reaches a verdict contrary to the judge's instructions as to the law.A jury verdict contrary to the letter of the law pertains only to the particular case before it; however, if a pattern of acquittals develops in response to repeated attempts to...
).
The case has occasionally been simplistically described as: Since the law has no way to prevent the jury from judging the law, they shall have that right, but only if they know it.
Three states did inform jurors of their full rights. These states were Georgia, Maryland, and Indiana.