Jury nullification wins over dumb law

[MikeK]

The difficulty in understanding just what Jury Nullification is rests in its basic simplicity, which is the simple fact that, regardless of any material evidence or testimony, when the jury says "Not Guilty!" that's it! Period. There is a good reason for the existence of this facility and those who wish to understand it should goto: Fully Informed Jury Association

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I though jury nullification is more of the jury judging the lawfulness and practicality of the law rather than the defendent. If a person is charges with a pety crime like not having enough 922R compliance parts on an imported firearm then the jury can basically say , "this law is complete horseshit and has nothing to do with public safety" and therefor "nullify" the charge.

As to the OJ simpson trial. How did the jury in that trial "nullify" murder???

They nullified the injustice of white men getting away with killing black men, and black men getting screwed by the system.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You have this one just backwards. It is FORTUNATE that jurors take the charges seriously, and follow them. What would we have if they didn't? Anarchy. The function of juries is to decide the FACTS, not the law. It is the function of the JUDGE to decide the law, not the jury.

Why, other than the courts saying so, shouldn't juries judge the law? Even in states that allow juries to do that I don't see anarchy erupting, but I do see a lot less of prosecutors getting away with throwing people in jail for stealing candy bars. Do you honestly think the 3 strikes law would be tossed out if it was used against a serious crime? Or that it should be applied to someone who is hungry? Wouldn't you love to be able to argue to a jury that the law, as it is sometimes applied, is wrong, but that it works more often than not?

 

[George Costanza]

You have this one just backwards. It is FORTUNATE that jurors take the charges seriously, and follow them. What would we have if they didn't? Anarchy. The function of juries is to decide the FACTS, not the law. It is the function of the JUDGE to decide the law, not the jury.

Why, other than the courts saying so, shouldn't juries judge the law? Even in states that allow juries to do that I don't see anarchy erupting, but I do see a lot less of prosecutors getting away with throwing people in jail for stealing candy bars. Do you honestly think the 3 strikes law would be tossed out if it was used against a serious crime? Or that it should be applied to someone who is hungry? Wouldn't you love to be able to argue to a jury that the law, as it is sometimes applied, is wrong, but that it works more often than not?

A major problem with your argument here is that you are limiting it to the cases of obviously objectionable laws, such as marijuana possession laws and third strike laws applied in the case of a minor, triggering offense. But if "jury nullification" had official sanction, it would mean that any juror would be free to throw a monkey wrench into any criminal trial, merely because he or she "didn't like" the particular law involved.

Juror No. 7 thinks the drunk driving laws are unfair because he feels he was unjustly convicted of DUI a number of years back. He knows the trial he is about to sit on will be a drunk driving case, so he fails to disclose his history on voir dire, just so he can "get back at" The System, by "nullifiying" the law in this particular case.

It doesn't take a genius to see why jury nullification is against the law. And while we're at it, was it you who was claiming that jury nullification is actually provided for in the constitutions of several states? Link, please.

 

[George Costanza]

The difficulty in understanding just what Jury Nullification is rests in its basic simplicity, which is the simple fact that, regardless of any material evidence or testimony, when the jury says "Not Guilty!" that's it! Period. There is a good reason for the existence of this facility and those who wish to understand it should goto: Fully Informed Jury Association

Here is an excerpt from the linked article:

Justice may depend upon your being chosen to serve, so here are some "words to the wise" about how to make it through voir dire, the jury selection process: You may feel that answering some of the questions asked of you would compromise your right to privacy. If you refuse to answer them, it will probably cost you your chance to serve. Likewise, if you "talk too much"--especially if you admit to knowing your rights and powers as a juror, as explained below, or that you have qualms about the law itself in the case at hand, or reveal that you're bright, educated, or are interested in serving! So, from voir dire to verdict, let your conscience be your guide.

"Let your conscience be your guide . . . " Translation: Figure out how to hide your intention to "nullify" the prosecution of the case upon which you are about to sit so that you will be able to be seated on the jury without subjecting yourself to those pesky contempt of court charges.

Mike, I hate to say it, but the site you have linked here is obviously a lunatic fringe site, similar to the sites that advocate non-payment of income tax. Sites such as these appear to offer legitimate justification for the particular action urged, but they are false prohphets, believe me.

 

[Gadawg73]

Half the people show up for jury duty with baseball hats, golf shirt and jeans. I have been working in the courts for over 30 years. Blue collar workers on down are the worst.
They are inconvenienced and pissed that they live in a free country. Many brag on how they avoided jury service and how they do not vote so they will not have to serve.
Jury nullification is very, very small, if any. Media has locked onto that for ratings. I trust the jury system as most of the half that I speak of are struck by one side or another and never serve. The remaining jurors are smart, diligent and do as charged by the law. Few don't and it is sympathy for a defendant rather than disliking the law that sways them.
But rarely is a verdict determined by it. Jury nullification causes hung juries where they can not come to a verdict.

 

[Gadawg73]

You have this one just backwards. It is FORTUNATE that jurors take the charges seriously, and follow them. What would we have if they didn't? Anarchy. The function of juries is to decide the FACTS, not the law. It is the function of the JUDGE to decide the law, not the jury.

Why, other than the courts saying so, shouldn't juries judge the law? Even in states that allow juries to do that I don't see anarchy erupting, but I do see a lot less of prosecutors getting away with throwing people in jail for stealing candy bars. Do you honestly think the 3 strikes law would be tossed out if it was used against a serious crime? Or that it should be applied to someone who is hungry? Wouldn't you love to be able to argue to a jury that the law, as it is sometimes applied, is wrong, but that it works more often than not?

A major problem with your argument here is that you are limiting it to the cases of obviously objectionable laws, such as marijuana possession laws and third strike laws applied in the case of a minor, triggering offense. But if "jury nullification" had official sanction, it would mean that any juror would be free to throw a monkey wrench into any criminal trial, merely because he or she "didn't like" the particular law involved.

Juror No. 7 thinks the drunk driving laws are unfair because he feels he was unjustly convicted of DUI a number of years back. He knows the trial he is about to sit on will be a drunk driving case, so he fails to disclose his history on voir dire, just so he can "get back at" The System, by "nullifiying" the law in this particular case.

It doesn't take a genius to see why jury nullification is against the law. And while we're at it, was it you who was claiming that jury nullification is actually provided for in the constitutions of several states? Link, please.

Good post.

 

[MikeK]

The difficulty in understanding just what Jury Nullification is rests in its basic simplicity, which is the simple fact that, regardless of any material evidence or testimony, when the jury says "Not Guilty!" that's it! Period. There is a good reason for the existence of this facility and those who wish to understand it should goto: Fully Informed Jury Association

Here is an excerpt from the linked article:

Justice may depend upon your being chosen to serve, so here are some "words to the wise" about how to make it through voir dire, the jury selection process: You may feel that answering some of the questions asked of you would compromise your right to privacy. If you refuse to answer them, it will probably cost you your chance to serve. Likewise, if you "talk too much"--especially if you admit to knowing your rights and powers as a juror, as explained below, or that you have qualms about the law itself in the case at hand, or reveal that you're bright, educated, or are interested in serving! So, from voir dire to verdict, let your conscience be your guide.

"Let your conscience be your guide . . . " Translation: Figure out how to hide your intention to "nullify" the prosecution of the case upon which you are about to sit so that you will be able to be seated on the jury without subjecting yourself to those pesky contempt of court charges.

Mike, I hate to say it, but the site you have linked here is obviously a lunatic fringe site, similar to the sites that advocate non-payment of income tax. Sites such as these appear to offer legitimate justification for the particular action urged, but they are false prohphets, believe me.

George,

You started out saying Jury Nullification is a myth. Then you said you have no doubt that it happens. Now you're saying the FIJA is a lunatic fringe and consists of false prophets. In this you appear fixed on the notion that Jury Nullification necessarily includes a declaration of intent to nullify and in that assumption you are mistaken.

I am not a lawyer but I did attend law school (Fordham University) and as a Field Investigator for the New York City Corporation Counsel's Office it would take a while to remember how many times I testified in criminal (and civil) trials. So I am quite familiar with this topic and have discussed it with broadly experienced experts. Jury Nullification does not mean to announce, or to ever admit, one's intention to nullify. Jury Nulllification simply means a jury issuing a not guilty verdict when there is incontrovertible evidence of guilt.

We presently don't see much nullification for two reasons. First, the vast majority of criminal defendants are low-lifes who are clearly guilty as charged and who elicit sympathy or empathy from no one and, last, because the vast majority of jurors are ignorant (not stupid) and are unaware of their power. But, as was recently demonstrated in a petty marijuana case, the public is beginning to show a willingness to assert the substance of their collective conscience when called upon to support what essentially are tyrannical laws.

The FIJA's purpose is to inform the public of the correct way to exercise their power, which is to tell the truth during the selection process but don't reveal their intention to nullify if their conscience points them in that direction. Once the public becomes aware of that power and how to exercise it, which will happen when the need arises, you will see vigorous attempts to re-define the role of juries.

 

[Againsheila]

Maybe of more people stood up and refused to on things like this we could get the government to start concentrating on the real problems.

A funny thing happened on the way to a trial in Missoula County District Court last week. Jurors – well, potential jurors – staged a revolt.
They took the law into their own hands, as it were, and made it clear they weren’t about to convict anybody for having a couple of buds of marijuana. Never mind that the defendant in question also faced a felony charge of criminal distribution of dangerous drugs.
The tiny amount of marijuana police found while searching Touray Cornell’s home on April 23 became a huge issue for some members of the jury panel.
No, they said, one after the other. No way would they convict somebody for having a 16th of an ounce.
In fact, one juror wondered why the county was wasting time and money prosecuting the case at all, said a flummoxed Deputy Missoula County Attorney Andrew Paul.

Missoula District Court: Jury pool in marijuana case stages ?mutiny?

A step in the right direction, even if the guy who benefited was the least deserving.

I agree insofar as the stupidity of marijuana laws. But I don't recommend trying something like that the next time you are called for jury duty.

How far do you think you would get if you "made it clear" that you simply were not going to sit on a jury? No reason - you just won't sit. What do you think would happen to you? Hint: Sanctions. So how does giving a reason ("I think the marijuana laws are stupid") make it any different? It doesn't.

"Jury nullification" is a popular myth that comes down to us from a misunderstanding of the purpose of juries in the first place. In real life, it does not exist.

What, you don't remember the Senate and their jury nullification of Clinton? Heck, I still have my letter saying, and I paraphrase here "Sure he's guilty as hell, but it's not worthy of removal."

How many senators admitted Clinton was guilty but voted not guilty anyway? What do you call that if not Jury Nullification? And at the highest level in the land.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You have this one just backwards. It is FORTUNATE that jurors take the charges seriously, and follow them. What would we have if they didn't? Anarchy. The function of juries is to decide the FACTS, not the law. It is the function of the JUDGE to decide the law, not the jury.

Why, other than the courts saying so, shouldn't juries judge the law? Even in states that allow juries to do that I don't see anarchy erupting, but I do see a lot less of prosecutors getting away with throwing people in jail for stealing candy bars. Do you honestly think the 3 strikes law would be tossed out if it was used against a serious crime? Or that it should be applied to someone who is hungry? Wouldn't you love to be able to argue to a jury that the law, as it is sometimes applied, is wrong, but that it works more often than not?

A major problem with your argument here is that you are limiting it to the cases of obviously objectionable laws, such as marijuana possession laws and third strike laws applied in the case of a minor, triggering offense. But if "jury nullification" had official sanction, it would mean that any juror would be free to throw a monkey wrench into any criminal trial, merely because he or she "didn't like" the particular law involved.

Juror No. 7 thinks the drunk driving laws are unfair because he feels he was unjustly convicted of DUI a number of years back. He knows the trial he is about to sit on will be a drunk driving case, so he fails to disclose his history on voir dire, just so he can "get back at" The System, by "nullifiying" the law in this particular case.

It doesn't take a genius to see why jury nullification is against the law. And while we're at it, was it you who was claiming that jury nullification is actually provided for in the constitutions of several states? Link, please.

That is what voir dire is supposed to catch, that lone crazy person who is just going to hang the jury no matter what. Even with jury nullification being illegal it is still possible for that lone person who disagrees with drunk driving laws to hang the jury and force the state to prosecute the guy again. The real world evidence clearly indicates that what you are imagining is not what happens, and advocating against jury nullification because something that is already possible might happen is ridiculous.

 

[Gadawg73]

Absolute bullshit. I watched almost all the OJ trial. He was found not guilty because4 the prosecution was totally incompetent. They allowed a known RACIST cop that had a personal history with OJ to be their star witness. They "found" more evidence days and weeks after the crime every time the evidence they had wasn't enough.

When the cops ILLEGALLY entered OJ's property the night of the murders they claimed they were there to ensure he was safe and alright, yet when they woke his daughter up and searched her house they were looking for shoes. WITHOUT a warrant.

The supposed blood stain on the car? Was so small as to have been invisible at night when the cops claimed they found it. His socks were supposedly full of blood, yet his white carpet in the room where they found the socks had NO BLOODSTAINS at all. And we are to believe he was smart enough to haul off all the evidence EXCEPT a pair of socks? Same socks, the medical lab admitted they sprayed his blood around the lab by accident when the socks were out and could have been contaminated.

An 18 year VETERAN of the police force a Detective that happened to be the racist cops partner "forgot" and carried OJ's blood to the crime scene and his home in his pocket.

Oj was found not guilty because the defense made idiots of the Prosecution and laid absolute doubt in the minds of the Jury.

Your mindset is frozen on Detective Mark Fuhrman's tainted testimony. While you are correct in accepting that his testimony was dismissible the fact is material evidence always outweighs evidence testimony in a criminal trial and the material evidence against O.J. Simpson was irrefutable. The blood of his victims was literally on his hands.

The prosecutors were not incompetent. They had no way of knowing that one witness would be purged. Fuhrman's testimony occurred as a fluke and was simply disregarded. By no means was it the single factor that would have swayed an objective jury. The material evidence was condemning. There is no question in the minds of many legal experts I've read and heard from that the Simpson jury issued a nullified verdict.

You say you followed the trial closely. So ask yourself, if you had been on that jury would you say Simpson was innocent?

In order to convict a Juror must be sure BEYOND a Reasonable doubt. The defense created all kind of reasonable doubt. Doubt about the blood evidence, the lab was incompetent and tainted samples on several occasions. Doubt about the glove , Fuhrman supposedly found, You are aware that the claim is the glove must have slipped out of OJ's pocket or bag, right? Are you aware Fuhrman claimed to find the glove UNDER an air conditioning unit? Doubt about the motive of the TWO illegal searches the cops conducted with either no warrant ( the first) or when they outright lied to a judge for the second. Doubt about the blood evidence supposedly OJ's when Fuhrman's partner ADMITTED in court he carried a vial of OJ's blood to the crime scene. An 18 year veteran detective simply forgot he put a vial of OJ's blood in his pocket and then went to the crime scene where suddenly more evidence is discovered? More doubt about the glove when it did not fit. No weapon was discovered just a claim he bought knives. Doubt about the socks.

I would have had to vote not guilty.

Not me. There was no evidence that the vial of blood leaked any blood whatsoever at the crime scene. It was sealed.
The glove that did not fit was great theatre but it was NOT evidence.
I have seen murder cases with 5% of the evidence they had against OJ and convistions were obtained.
Weapons are rarely found in murders. There was no motive proven whatsoever that there was a Klan witch hunt, as Cochran tried to show, against Simpson.
On and on and on and on.
What you had was a lazy incompetent judge and a burned out jury that did not know how to do their job.
But neither of us were there and saw ALL of the trial. Easy for either of us to Monday morning QB anything about the evidence, prosecution or jury.

 

[Againsheila]

Your mindset is frozen on Detective Mark Fuhrman's tainted testimony. While you are correct in accepting that his testimony was dismissible the fact is material evidence always outweighs evidence testimony in a criminal trial and the material evidence against O.J. Simpson was irrefutable. The blood of his victims was literally on his hands.

The prosecutors were not incompetent. They had no way of knowing that one witness would be purged. Fuhrman's testimony occurred as a fluke and was simply disregarded. By no means was it the single factor that would have swayed an objective jury. The material evidence was condemning. There is no question in the minds of many legal experts I've read and heard from that the Simpson jury issued a nullified verdict.

You say you followed the trial closely. So ask yourself, if you had been on that jury would you say Simpson was innocent?

In order to convict a Juror must be sure BEYOND a Reasonable doubt. The defense created all kind of reasonable doubt. Doubt about the blood evidence, the lab was incompetent and tainted samples on several occasions. Doubt about the glove , Fuhrman supposedly found, You are aware that the claim is the glove must have slipped out of OJ's pocket or bag, right? Are you aware Fuhrman claimed to find the glove UNDER an air conditioning unit? Doubt about the motive of the TWO illegal searches the cops conducted with either no warrant ( the first) or when they outright lied to a judge for the second. Doubt about the blood evidence supposedly OJ's when Fuhrman's partner ADMITTED in court he carried a vial of OJ's blood to the crime scene. An 18 year veteran detective simply forgot he put a vial of OJ's blood in his pocket and then went to the crime scene where suddenly more evidence is discovered? More doubt about the glove when it did not fit. No weapon was discovered just a claim he bought knives. Doubt about the socks.

I would have had to vote not guilty.

Not me. There was no evidence that the vial of blood leaked any blood whatsoever at the crime scene. It was sealed.
The glove that did not fit was great theatre but it was NOT evidence.
I have seen murder cases with 5% of the evidence they had against OJ and convistions were obtained.
Weapons are rarely found in murders. There was no motive proven whatsoever that there was a Klan witch hunt, as Cochran tried to show, against Simpson.
On and on and on and on.
What you had was a lazy incompetent judge and a burned out jury that did not know how to do their job.
But neither of us were there and saw ALL of the trial. Easy for either of us to Monday morning QB anything about the evidence, prosecution or jury.

Truthfully, I'm not sure OJ did the murders, I think his son may have. I do know some things that was done to his wife's body that make it a very personal attack. That was not a drug deal gone wrong....that was personal and about as cruel and unusual as you can get.

 

[Gadawg73]

The socks were found in his house and they were his and Nicole's blood was on them.
Undisputed evidence and they claimed that it had to be tampered with. DNA evidence was it was Nicoles.
If that is not enough, nothing is.

 

[jillian]

The socks were found in his house and they were his and Nicole's blood was on them.
Undisputed evidence and they claimed that it had to be tampered with. DNA evidence was it was Nicoles.
If that is not enough, nothing is.

the problem was that the blood evidence was held and not logged in for hours by a cop who had a history of racism. that created doubt in the jury's minds.. particularly given the history of LAPD toward minorities. the prosecution was out of control and more concerned with how they looked to the cameras and more concerned with the affair they were having than their case. oj simpson was a hero to a lot of people and the prosecution needed to overcome thei jury's natural hesitation to find a hero guilty.

a criminal prosecution can't have that many holes in it. and you never, ever ask the defendant to put on a pair of gloves if you don't know they fit.

 

[Gadawg73]

The socks were found in his house and they were his and Nicole's blood was on them.
Undisputed evidence and they claimed that it had to be tampered with. DNA evidence was it was Nicoles.
If that is not enough, nothing is.

the problem was that the blood evidence was held and not logged in for hours by a cop who had a history of racism. that created doubt in the jury's minds.. particularly given the history of LAPD toward minorities. the prosecution was out of control and more concerned with how they looked to the cameras and more concerned with the affair they were having than their case. oj simpson was a hero to a lot of people and the prosecution needed to overcome thei jury's natural hesitation to find a hero guilty.

a criminal prosecution can't have that many holes in it. and you never, ever ask the defendant to put on a pair of gloves if you don't know they fit.

I have prepared dozens of murder cases for trial for defense lawyers. Respectfully, the race card IS NOT evidence of any kind. The prosecution was not out of control and never pandered to the cameras. The defense did that.
The gloves didn't fit because Simpson bent his fingers. Anyone can do that.
I do agree that the jury found him not guilty because he was a hero.
And that was absurd. DNA placed him at the crime scene. Enough to convict.

 

[jillian]

The socks were found in his house and they were his and Nicole's blood was on them.
Undisputed evidence and they claimed that it had to be tampered with. DNA evidence was it was Nicoles.
If that is not enough, nothing is.

the problem was that the blood evidence was held and not logged in for hours by a cop who had a history of racism. that created doubt in the jury's minds.. particularly given the history of LAPD toward minorities. the prosecution was out of control and more concerned with how they looked to the cameras and more concerned with the affair they were having than their case. oj simpson was a hero to a lot of people and the prosecution needed to overcome thei jury's natural hesitation to find a hero guilty.

a criminal prosecution can't have that many holes in it. and you never, ever ask the defendant to put on a pair of gloves if you don't know they fit.

I have prepared dozens of murder cases for trial for defense lawyers. Respectfully, the race card IS NOT evidence of any kind. The prosecution was not out of control and never pandered to the cameras. The defense did that.
The gloves didn't fit because Simpson bent his fingers. Anyone can do that.
I do agree that the jury found him not guilty because he was a hero.
And that was absurd. DNA placed him at the crime scene. Enough to convict.

i'm not talking about just 'the race card'. i'm talking about the fact that the prosecution didn't do its job. and you know how bad it looked that they didn't log in the blood evidence when the jury was predisposed to disbeleive them anyway.

and the glove didn't fit because the blood dried and shrunk the leather... not because he bent his finger.

As i said, i'd have said not guilty. He was found guilty in the civil trial because there is a lesser standard of proof.

 

[midcan5]

Interesting debate. Having served on several juries and having been dismissed from others, the experience leaves lots of doubt sometimes. White juries freed all the civil rights antagonists during the sixties, culture and worldview enter this process too readily. OJ's jury was finely chosen and for the defense a win. But it is the best we can do, Solomon left us long ago.

This is good - if a bit OT - if you have time. Philip K. Howard: Four ways to fix a broken legal system | Video on TED.com

"Where there is no law, but every man does what is right in his own eyes, there is the least of real liberty." Henry M. Robert

 

[Oddball]

You have this one just backwards. It is FORTUNATE that jurors take the charges seriously, and follow them. What would we have if they didn't? Anarchy. The function of juries is to decide the FACTS, not the law. It is the function of the JUDGE to decide the law, not the jury.

Why, other than the courts saying so, shouldn't juries judge the law? Even in states that allow juries to do that I don't see anarchy erupting, but I do see a lot less of prosecutors getting away with throwing people in jail for stealing candy bars. Do you honestly think the 3 strikes law would be tossed out if it was used against a serious crime? Or that it should be applied to someone who is hungry? Wouldn't you love to be able to argue to a jury that the law, as it is sometimes applied, is wrong, but that it works more often than not?

A major problem with your argument here is that you are limiting it to the cases of obviously objectionable laws, such as marijuana possession laws and third strike laws applied in the case of a minor, triggering offense. But if "jury nullification" had official sanction, it would mean that any juror would be free to throw a monkey wrench into any criminal trial, merely because he or she "didn't like" the particular law involved.

Juror No. 7 thinks the drunk driving laws are unfair because he feels he was unjustly convicted of DUI a number of years back. He knows the trial he is about to sit on will be a drunk driving case, so he fails to disclose his history on voir dire, just so he can "get back at" The System, by "nullifiying" the law in this particular case.

It doesn't take a genius to see why jury nullification is against the law. And while we're at it, was it you who was claiming that jury nullification is actually provided for in the constitutions of several states? Link, please.

If it's against the law, why aren't people working for Fully Informed Jury Association being arrested, tried and convicted for obstruction?

They're not, because it isn't.

But hey....You're a sworn officer of the court, so your role is to serve your masters first.

 

[George Costanza]

I can understand why prosecutors, and even judges, are afraid of jury nullification, but I have never understood why defense attorneys are not advocating for it left and right. SCOTUS has affirmed the rights of juries to nullify at least three times, it is even written into the Constitutions of several states, and judges are required by law to instruct juries that they can ignore the law in both Maryland and Indiana. Yet we still have george insisting it never happens.

I think part of our problem here is that jury nullification is illegal in California, and that's where I hang my shingle. Read this:

Jury Nullification

So, my comments about JN are based entirely on my own, personal experience with it under California law. I had not realized that it is recognized in some other states.

So judges claim total sovereignty in the courtroom?

No - only on questions of law. Questions of fact are decided solely by the jury.

 

[George Costanza]

Why, other than the courts saying so, shouldn't juries judge the law? Even in states that allow juries to do that I don't see anarchy erupting, but I do see a lot less of prosecutors getting away with throwing people in jail for stealing candy bars. Do you honestly think the 3 strikes law would be tossed out if it was used against a serious crime? Or that it should be applied to someone who is hungry? Wouldn't you love to be able to argue to a jury that the law, as it is sometimes applied, is wrong, but that it works more often than not?

A major problem with your argument here is that you are limiting it to the cases of obviously objectionable laws, such as marijuana possession laws and third strike laws applied in the case of a minor, triggering offense. But if "jury nullification" had official sanction, it would mean that any juror would be free to throw a monkey wrench into any criminal trial, merely because he or she "didn't like" the particular law involved.

Juror No. 7 thinks the drunk driving laws are unfair because he feels he was unjustly convicted of DUI a number of years back. He knows the trial he is about to sit on will be a drunk driving case, so he fails to disclose his history on voir dire, just so he can "get back at" The System, by "nullifiying" the law in this particular case.

It doesn't take a genius to see why jury nullification is against the law. And while we're at it, was it you who was claiming that jury nullification is actually provided for in the constitutions of several states? Link, please.

If it's against the law, why aren't people working for Fully Informed Jury Association being arrested, tried and convicted for obstruction?

They're not, because it isn't.

But hey....You're a sworn officer of the court, so your role is to serve your masters first.

Much like that nut case organization that claims to have a justifiable, legally supportable argument that no one has to pay federal income taxes, the "Fully Informed Jury Association" is misinterpreting various constitutional phrases, case decisions and statutes in an attempt to justify the incorrect conclusion that jury nullification is somehow "recognized" and allowable under our judicial system.

I don't know what has happened, or will happen, to the members of this organization, but I know what will happen to a citizen called to jury duty, who attempts to implement their suggested course of action.