Replies

I'm pretty sure that he was joking when he said "Stick it to the man," as that's what the little ;) icon means. Did you miss that, or are you just repeating this phrase to help your point along?

Additionally, he has certainly made up his mind about what he believes are unjust laws. And if a case comes in front of him that attempts to enforce one of these unjust laws, it is not silly that his mind would be made up. If there were laws passed banning handguns, I'd certainly be eager to serve on a jury case to have the opportunity to nullify verdicts against those charged with owning them. I would have serious doubts if they had been charged with HARMING others, but the idea is the same: voting to penalize a defendant under the law can and should be based on a juror's perception of whether the law is just or not.

Just because he knows that drug laws are unjust now doesn't make him wrong for wanting to apply his personal judgment as a juror. You would say he's wrong because he's decided in advance that a law is unjust; I would say that is proof of serious reflection on that law, as opposed to during the minimal time one serves as a juror.

And jury nullification is NOT rare for only the reasons you describe. It is also rare because there is an active effort to prevent defense attorneys from informing jurors, and to prevent jurors from informing other jurors, of their rights as free men to decide for themselves what justice truly entails. Established precedents deny the defense in most courtrooms a right to let jurors know their nullification right, and judges and legislators continue to force the use of prescribed jury instructions that do not include the jurors' duty to uphold JUSTICE, not just uphold 'the law.'

I say again, God forbid that lawyers have to justify their works to 12 honest, God-fearing, Constitution-loving men.