Yehudi Manzano v. United States

American courts routinely prohibit criminal juries from hearing any argument that they should judge both the law and facts of a case – pejoratively described as jury nullification – or any evidence related to sentencing consequences. The United States halted proceedings in this criminal case on the eve of trial when the district court granted the petitioner’s motion for permission to argue, during his counsel’s closing argument, that the jury decide both law and fact and reserved decision on his motion to introduce evidence regarding sentence consequences until trial. The Second Circuit granted the United States’ application for a writ of mandamus to reverse the former decision even though the United States did not provide a jurisdictional basis for its appeal under the Criminal Appeals Act. The Second Circuit also could not point to any controlling authority from this Court or itself that clearly prohibited the district court’s decision, merely stating that it was firmly convinced that the district court took an incorrect view of the law. The questions presented are:

1. Whether the United States may seek a writ of mandamus in a criminal case to bring an interlocutory appeal that is not permitted by 18 U.S.C. § 3731.

2. Whether a writ of mandamus may issue where the applicant does not have a clear and indisputable right to it by established law, but the issuing court is firmly convinced that the lower court is wrong.