Rhode Island House Bill H5310

Rhode Island 2023 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/1/23
• Refer: 2/1/23

Caption

Joint Resolution To Approve And Publish And Submit To The Electors A Proposition Of Amendment To The Constitution -- Jury Nullification As Proper Trial Defense Argument (this Joint Resolution Would Propose To The Voters A Constitutional Amendment Which Would Allow A Criminal Defendant To Argue Jury Nullification As A Defense.)

Impact

If enacted, this amendment could significantly alter the standard defense strategies available to criminal defendants. The introduction of jury nullification as a recognized defense would provide defendants an avenue to challenge not only the application of the law but also the law's ethical standing and constitutionality. This could lead to groundbreaking changes in how juries view their responsibility and the potential for increased acquittals in cases where the law is perceived as unjust.

Summary

House Bill H5310 is a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Rhode Island Constitution to allow jury nullification as a proper defense argument during criminal trials. Specifically, this bill asserts that a defendant should have the right to argue that juries consider not only the law but also the broader implications and morality of the law in question during deliberations. It sets a precedent for empowering juries to make decisions based on their moral compass, especially concerning laws they deem outdated or unfair.

Contention

The proposal has sparked considerable debate among legislators, legal scholars, and advocacy groups. Proponents argue that this amendment empowers citizens and reflects a democratic approach to justice, allowing juries to serve as a check on laws that may not align with contemporary moral standards. Critics, however, warn that it could undermine the rule of law, leading to unpredictability in verdicts and increased instances of jury rebellion against established statutes. The discussions around this bill highlight a fundamental conflict between the desire for legal principles versus the evolving nature of moral judgment within the justice system.