Definitions and Examples
To Nullify or Not to Nullify, That Is the Question
A Violation of the Sex Offender Act
|
JURY NULLIFICATION Definitions and Examples To Nullify or Not to Nullify, That Is the Question A Violation of the Sex Offender Act |
Mr. James Jones, a "convicted sex offender," was on trial in Cook County felony courts. He was sentenced as a sex offender (the actual charge was "juvenile pimping") in 1993 and served a prison term until his release in 1996. Illinois law provides that: (paraphrase) a convicted sex offender shall register in person with the chief of police of the municipality wherein he or she resides, and upon moving, shall likewise register no more than ten days after the move, or at any place of temporary residence, where the period of residence exceeds ten days.
Mr. Jones lived at 6745 S. California Ave., Chicago, in a room he rented from his father. When his father sold the house, he moved to 6749 S. California, which was the next house to the South, with a vacant lot in between. He lived there 13 months without re-registering.
One evening, as Mr. Jones was leaving a restaurant, three policemen approached. As they did, he walked away from the group of people he was with. His behavior raised the suspicion of the police, who followed and stopped him. Through a series of events, the police found he was not living at the address where he was registered and arrested him under the provisions of the "Sex Offender Registration Act." Mr. Jones asked for a jury trial.
The following is a paraphrase of the testimony given at the trial:
OPENING STATEMENTS:
The prosecutor, an assistant district attorney, opened first. She outlined the case she was to make, using the evidence available: the man simply and surely broke the law-he moved and did not re-register. Since he did not, and the offense he was convicted of required him to, he should be convicted of failure to register.
The counsel for the defense stressed that this law intends residents of a neighborhood to be informed when a "registered sex offender" lives among them. In the present case, the offender moved exactly two doors south from his previous residence. The facts in this case show that the intent of the law was not broken; the defendant did not move into a neighborhood, but was, in fact, already a resident of that neighborhood, and registered there as a sex offender.
THE EVIDENCE:
The prosecution presented four witnesses:
Arresting police officer: testified that Mr. Jones caused suspicion by moving away from the group he was with when he (the officer) and his partner approached. When stopped, Mr. Jones' identity was checked and it was found that he was a registered sex offender. Upon further investigation, it was found that the address on his driver's license did not match that on the "sex offender registration form," a copy of which was filed at district headquarters. He was arrested for failing to re-register when he changed his address.
Current resident of 6745 S. California: testified that she did indeed live at that address, along with her husband, and had done so for more than a year. She occasionally received un-forwarded mail for Mr. Jones. He would come over at times to pick it up.
Cook County Sheriff's clerk: testified that the registered address for Mr. Jones, as recorded by Cook County under the provisions of the Sex Offender Registration Act, was 6745 S. California, and had been since his release from prison in 1996.
Parole Officer: testified that when Mr. Jones first met with him, following his release, he was informed of the requirement to register his address, and initialed and signed a form indicating he understood the provisions of the law. The form was admitted as evidence.
The defense called no witnesses.
SUMMATIONS:
For the prosecution: The assistant State's Attorney reminded the jury of the facts of the case, the relevant law, and that she had established, through her witnesses, that the defendant was aware of the law. She carefully led the jury through the chain of evidence:
Therefore, there could be no doubt that he was indeed in violation, and should receive the punishment required by the statute.
For the defense: Mr. Jones' attorney reminded the jury that the facts were not in dispute, and stressed that the spirit of the law had been maintained. Mr. Jones did not enter a new neighborhood and fail to register. He was, in fact, a long-time resident of that neighborhood, and by relocating only a couple of doors, was in fact still registered with the authorities.
JUDGE'S INSTRUCTION TO THE JURY:
For the purposes of deliberation, the jury is to give no weight to Mr. Jones' previous conviction, other than to know that "juvenile pimping" is one of the offenses listed in the "Sex Offender Registration Act," and therefore requires him to register.