9311922 HOROWITZ Juries have the implicit power to acquit defendants despite evidnce and judicial instructions to the contrary. This power, embedded in the phenomenon called jury nullification, has historically permitted sympathetic juries to acquit those who are legally guilty but morally upright. This research proposal presents a theory that predicts when juries obey the law (that is, follow their prescribed role as finders of the facts) and when they sometimes disobey the law (i.e., do not apply the law as instructed). The research also examines the concepts of nullification in civil trials, a neglected area of concern. The theory distinguishes between nullification, which we define as a principled decision to disobey the law, and other forms of jury noncompliance with the judge's instructions. This research will allow for a clearer understanding of when and why juries disobey the law. Jury nullification is an increasingly important topic but it has been enmeshed in speculation and unsubstantiated assumptions about how juries operate. The nullification controversy, and the place of the jury in the legal system, will be well served by a serious empirical investigation of the jury's nullification tendencies. To test the predictions made by our theory of jury nullification, we have designed three experiments using individuals drawn from juror rolls who will view various videotaped trials in a realistic setting (the moot courtroom of a law school). These jurors will deliberate to a verdict. The deliberations will be taped and both outcomes and group decision processes analyzed. The experiments examine the nullification process in both criminal and civil trials. The results of these experiments will provide empirical information about why and how juries decide to obey or disobey the dictates of the court. ***
