[Bob Ireland]

Jury nullification (US) or a perverse verdict (UK) generally occurs when members of a criminal trial jury believe that a defendant is guilty, but choose to acquit him anyway because the jurors also believe that the law itself is unjust, that the prosecutor has misapplied the law in the defendant's case, or that the potential punishment for breaking the law is too harsh.

***Can the jury even read the riot act to the judge who behaves irresponsibly, irrationally & unlawfully?***

Probably not wisely so. If a judge, such as this judge, is already corrupt, the jurist might attempt to retaliate by holding the juror / jury in contempt. Be clear, a jury cannot legally be faulted for their verdict. The principle is loooong established in English Common Law.

Besides, the jury has already sanctioned the judge by using the common law process; nothing more need be said. The jurist is likely to turn red faced and even vocalize their authority... but the jury has already won.

***Can they declare that the judge was unlawful according to that jury's interpretation of their chosen aspects of the law?***

Again, the jury has decidedly already rendered the trial court of no effect. Gloating is not very noble... ;^)

Judges and attorneys try mightily to convince juries that jury nullification is not valid -- or even that it does not exist. It is all a sham designed to usurp the right of citizens to practice self-representation.

[joseburr]

Thanks. That’s the best understanding anyone has ever given me on jury nullification. Seems to me we need to educate citizens wholesale & persistently until the average citizen knows the facts.

[wastedyears]

Must make a black-robed tyrant awfully mad to be rebuked by the peasants they lord over in their fiefdom.