I’m all for it. There are so many stupid laws that need to be struck down. The fact remains that juries are often mislead, lied to, and bullied by the powers that be. Radley Balko addresses jury nullification in this FoxNews piece:
The doctrine of jury nullification (search) rests on two truths about the American criminal justice system: (1) Jurors can never be punished for the verdict they return, and (2) Defendants cannot be retried once a jury has found them not guilty, regardless of the jury’s reasoning. So the juries in both the Rosenthal and Paey cases could have returned a “not guilty” verdict, even though Paey and Rosenthal were undoubtedly guilty of the charges against them.
This may sound radical, perhaps even subversive, but jury nullification serves as an important safeguard against unjust laws, as well as against the unfair application of well-intended laws. It’s also steeped in American and British legal tradition.
Patterico dissents from Balko’s endorsement of jury nullification, noting:
In a competent judge’s courtroom, all jurors are asked if they are willing to follow the law, regardless of whether they agree with it. They must answer this question in the affirmative or they cannot sit as jurors. And they must answer this question under oath.
Rendering a verdict is following the law, though I’m certain he means a juror states they are willing to convict based on the law. I disagree with his conclusion because, at some point, someone has to stand up and state that something is unjust, unfair, or just fucking stupid. And, given that jurors are often kept in the dark regarding lots of things, it’s not like jury nullification is really an issue. Though I do wish it was. I also wish we had Congressional nullification.
Update: Good debate going on in the comments at Patterico’s, if you’re into that sort of thing. Apparently, California lawyers don’t like it.