It isn't illegal in the sense that you will never find a statute expressly prohibiting it. But you will find cases prohibiting it. And you will also find judges who instruct juries that they must follow the law of the case - and this includes the law defining the crime charged.
Right Wing Whackodom is FILLED with what I like to call convenient myths. These are myths that mirror what the Right would LIKE reality to be. This is one of those myths.
Right Wing Whackodom?
I know there are some that argue that we are a nation of laws, and that the law trumps right and wrong. I will simply point out that even if the law was handed down by God himself, which it obviously is not, it would still be administered by imperfect human beings that make mistakes. Telling any thinking person that they have to follow the law when it is obvious not only that the law is wrong, but that the person charged with breaking the law, though technically guilty, is right is something right wing hardliners would actually back.
I know that some, including you, argue that ultimately justice will prevail and people will, if wrongfully prosecuted, be freed. I can then point to the fact that people die in prison after they were railroaded by the prosecution. This does not offend my conservative side, it offends my liberal side. I will also point out that it is extremely rare for an appellate court to overturn a conviction for any reason. There has to be either a clear cut error of some type that is egregious, or the law has to be found unconstitutional. Tell me honestly, would you willing to be a test case for challenging the constitutionality of a law if someone was willing to compensate you liberally for the time you spent incarcerated during the entire process?
I will also point out that, despite years of efforts by some people, no court has ever ruled that juries do not have the power to judge the law. Current precedent holds that the judge can overrule the jury on points of law, but that is not the same as them not judging it at all.
Just because the judge does not have to inform a jury about nullification in jury instructions, as current case law states, that does not mean that defendants should not have the right to argue nullification to the jury themselves. The law is so screwed up that even if a defendant represents himself the court will refuse to let him argue nullification. Is it some sort of breach of professional ethics to allow someone who is not a lawyer to argue nullification, or is an usurpation of a persons right to represent himself?
By the way, I can easily cite numerous right wing judges, including Robert
Bork, who oppose jury nullification. this is not a partisan debate, despite the fact that militia groups have seized on this issue. I could easily point out that these same groups have also seized on free speech as a favorite issue, and I am pretty sure you do not think that is a partisan issue. Lets try to keep this debate on the merits of the issue, on not on the people who are arguing it.
Burn 
