NCJ Number
137720
Journal
Journal of Criminal Justice Volume: 20 Issue: 3 Dated: (1992) Pages: 261-266
Date Published
1992
Length
6 pages
Annotation
This article examines the legal lore and social science data on jurors' performance and considers the factors that allowed the jury in the Marion Barry trial to exonerate the mayor for his actions.
Abstract
Marion Barry had been charged with 11 misdemeanor counts of possession of crack cocaine and with three felony perjury counts. Prosecution witnesses included former girlfriends of the mayor, former District of Columbia government employees, and Washington, D.C., businessmen. A sting operation, in which a former girlfriend of the mayor participated, was the most controversial aspect of the case, with Barry supporters labeling the government's actions as entrapment. On August 11, 1990, after 8 days of deliberations, the jury reported it was unable to arrive at a verdict on 12 of the 14 charges against the mayor. The jury convicted Barry on one count of possession of cocaine and acquitted him on another count of possession. The jury hung 6-6 and 7-5 on the three felony perjury charges. The jury consisted of nine women and three men. All of the women were black, one male juror was black, and the other two males were white. The most consistent proacquittal jurors were four of the five older black women and the black male. The jurors who most consistently favored a guilty verdict were the four younger, higher status black women and the two white men. This article contends that the proacquittal jurors engaged in the time-honored tradition of "jury nullification" in that they refused to apply the law based on the evidence because they believed that to do so would result in an unjust verdict. Other possible explanations of the verdict are also discussed. 6 references