Jury nullification occurs when the jury acquits the defendant in a cri

Passage A

Jury nullification occurs when the jury acquits the
defendant in a criminal case in disregard of the judge's
instructions and contrary to the jury's findings of fact.
Sometimes a jury's nullification decision is based on
(5) mercy for the defendant, sometimes on dislike for the
victim. Juries have also sometimes nullified when the
defendant engaged in civil disobedience and the jurors
agreed with the actions. While instances of jury
nullification are probably few, the problems created
(10) by the jury's power to nullify are great.

First, we do not know how the power is used.
Because juries are not required to and typically do not
explain their verdicts, it is impossible to say how often
nullification occurs. This means that we also do not
(15) know how often juries use this power for evil ends
rather than for good ones.

Second, juries often have insufficient evidence to
make a reasoned nullification decision. Evidence that
might inform such a decision, such as a defendant's
(20) past brushes with the law, usually is not admitted at
trial because it is irrelevant to the technical question
of guilt or innocence.

Third, jurors are not legislators. We have an
elected legislature to pass laws and elected or
(25) appointed judges to interpret them. The jury is
unelected, is unaccountable, and has no obligation
to think through the effect an acquittal will have
on others.

Reasonable people can disagree on the proper
(30) reach of the criminal laws. Nevertheless, the place for
them to disagree is in public, where the reasons for
revisions of the laws can be scrutinized and debated.

Passage B

Police and prosecutors have discretion to decide
which violations of the law to pursue and which to
(35) overlook. Even with such discretion, however, these
officials can sometimes be overzealous. In such cases,
the jury can act as a safety valve and use its own
discretion to decide, for example, that a case is too
trivial or the circumstances too extenuating for the

(40) case to result in a conviction.
When a jury nullifies because it does not believe
a law should be applied to a particular defendant, the
jury can also be viewed as assisting the legislature.
Legislatures create general laws both because they
(45) cannot foresee every variation that may arise, and
because legislators often have competing views about
what should be included in legislation and so must
settle for broad language if any laws are to be passed.

Similarly, when a jury nullifies because it
(50) believes a law is unjust, it also performs a useful
function vis-a-vis the legislature, namely indicating
to the legislature that there may be a problem with
the law in question.

It may happen that a jury will be persuaded to
(55) nullify by factors they should ignore, but such
instances of nullification are likely to be uncommon.
For a jury to agree to nullify means that the case for
nullification must be so compelling that all twelve of
the jurors, despite their different backgrounds and
(60) perspectives, nevertheless agree that nullification is
the appropriate course of action.

1. The author of passage B suggests that some laws justify the use of jury nullification because they are too

(A) complicated
(B) antiquated
(C) permissive
(D) intrusive
(E) general


2. The authors of the passages differ in their attitudes towards juries in that the author of passage B is

(A) less trusting with regard to the motivations behind juries' nullification decisions
(B) less skeptical of the capacity of juries to understand the laws they are expected to apply
(C) more concerned about the fact that juries rarely provide the reasoning behind their verdicts
(D) more confident in the ability of juries to exercise the power to nullify in a just manner
(E) more disappointed in the failure of juries to use the power to nullify to effect social change


3. Based on what can be inferred from their titles, the relationship between the documents in which one of the following pairs is most analogous to the relationship between passage A and passage B?

(A) "Cameras in the Courtroom: A Perversion of Justice?" "The Pros and Cons of Televising Courtroom Proceedings"
(B) "Cameras in the Courtroom: Three Central Issues in the Debate" "The Unexpected Benefits of Permitting Cameras in Court"
(C) "The Inherent Dangers of Permitting Cameras in Colin" "How Televising Courtroom Proceedings Can Assist the Law"
(D) "The Troublesome History of Cameras in the Courtroom" "The Laudable Motives Behind Televised Courtroom Proceedings"
(E) "Why Cameras Should Be Banned from the Courtroom' "The Inevitability of Televised Courtroom Proceedings"


4. The authors of the passages would be most likely to disagree over whether

(A) juries should be more forthcoming about the reasoning behind their verdicts
(B) laws are subject to scrutiny and debate by reasonable people
(C) it is likely that elected officials are more biased in their decision-making than jurors are
(D) it is within the purview of juries not only to apply the law but to interpret it
(E) police and prosecutors should have less discretion to decide which violations of the law to pursue


5. Which one of the following is a criticism that the author of passage A would be likely to offer regarding the suggestion in passage B that juries arc justified in nullifying when they view a case as too trivial to result in a conviction?

(A) Prosecutors rarely bring cases to trial that they regard as trivial.
(B) Prosecutors are unlikely to present a case in a manner that makes it appear trivial to a jury.
(C) The members of a jury are unlikely to be in accord in their evaluation of a case's seriousness.
(D) Jurors may not have sufficient expertise to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of a case.
(E) Jurors may not be aware of all the reasons why a case was brought against a defendant.


6. Which one of the following most accurately characterizes the relationship between the two passages?

(A) Passage A offers a critique of a power possessed by juries, while passage B argues in support of that power.
(B) Passage A denounces a judicial custom, while passage B proposes improvements to that custom.
(C) Passage A surveys a range of evidence about jury behavior, while passage B suggests a hypothesis to explain that behavior.
(D) Passage A argues that a problem facing legal systems is intractable, while passage B presents a solution to that problem.
(E) Passage A raises a question concerning a legal procedure, while passage B attempts to answer that question.