Explain both the support and opposition for the viewpoint that jury nullification can be a violation of a defendant's sixth amendment rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

Jury nullification can go for the defendent: find him not guilty when he was proven guilty, or find him guilty when he was not.

Nullification is a powerful jury tool which judges will never tell the jury about.

See the entire article above in Wiki.

Thanks

Support for the viewpoint that jury nullification can be a violation of a defendant's sixth amendment rights stems from several arguments. The Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides certain rights to individuals accused of a crime, including the right to a fair trial by an impartial jury. Here are some points that support this viewpoint:

1. Undermining the Rule of Law: Jury nullification occurs when a jury refuses to convict a defendant despite evidence that establishes guilt. Supporters of this viewpoint argue that jury nullification undermines the rule of law because it allows a group of jurors to disregard the letter of the law and individual rights. It could lead to inconsistent and unpredictable outcomes in the criminal justice system.

2. Danger of Unchecked Power: Critics argue that allowing jury nullification grants unchecked power to the jury, potentially leading to abuse and bias. When jurors exercise nullification, they are effectively substituting their personal judgment for the law, which can result in arbitrary verdicts and unfair treatment of defendants.

3. Diminishing Defendant Protections: The Sixth Amendment aims to protect defendants' rights and ensure a fair trial. By refusing to convict, even when the defendant is technically guilty, jury nullification may undermine these protections. Supporters argue that this can create an environment where defendants are not held accountable for their actions and can encourage a lack of respect for the law.

On the other hand, some arguments are put forth by those who oppose the viewpoint that jury nullification violates a defendant's Sixth Amendment rights. It is important to note that these arguments represent the opposition and not the personal opinion of the AI. Here are a few points typically made:

1. Right to a Fully Informed Jury: Advocates argue that jury nullification is a necessary safeguard to ensure that a jury can act as the conscience of the community. They claim that jurors have the right to be fully informed, not only about the facts of the case but also about their power to judge the law itself. Supporting jury nullification as a protected right promotes a more informed and responsible citizenry.

2. Acting as a Check on Unjust Laws: Opponents of the viewpoint argue that nullification can be a valuable tool for citizens to challenge unjust laws or unjust application of laws. In cases where a law is seen as morally or ethically wrong or violates individual rights, jury nullification allows jurors to send a message to lawmakers about the need for change.

3. Balancing Power and Protection: Some argue that while jury nullification may create potential conflicts with the principle of the Sixth Amendment, it should be seen as an essential element of the checks and balances in the justice system. Allowing the jury to act upon its conscience can serve as a counterweight to any potential imbalance in power between the state and the accused.

To form a comprehensive understanding of both the support and opposition regarding the viewpoint on jury nullification as a violation of a defendant's Sixth Amendment rights, it is advisable to further research and consider a variety of perspectives from legal scholars, opinions of courts, and the historical context of this issue.