[HamiltonJay]

Pro,

Here ya go, Definition directly from the the NOLO Legal Dictionary:

JURY NULLIFICATION:


A decision by the jury to acquit a defendant who has violated a law that the jury believes is unjust or wrong. Jury nullification has always been an option for juries in England and the United States, although judges will prevent a defense lawyer from urging the jury to acquit on this basis. Nullification was evident during the Vietnam war (when selective service protesters were acquitted by juries opposed to the war) and currently appears in criminal cases when the jury disagrees with the punishment--for example, in "three strikes" cases when the jury realizes that conviction of a relatively minor offense will result in lifetime imprisonment.


As you can planely see, nullification requires the JURY TO ACQUIT, not be hung. Have a nice day... Another house of your opinion cards goes crashing to the floor.

[Iwo Jima]

You seem to be trying to pick a fight with Protagoras, and I don't know why. "Jury nullification" is an imprecise term, as it seems to imply that a law has been nullified. Of course, when a jury acquits based on their opinon that the law is unjust or illegal, the law is not nullified, it is simply not allowed to be applied in one particular case. An acquittal is an acquittal, and regardless of the reasons, double jeopardy applies and the defendant can never be tried for that offense again.

If one juror votes not guilty based on his view of the law, that creates a hung jury and a mistrial will be declared. The defendant can be tried again (and again and again) until a unanimous verdict is reached one way or another.

I don't think that what you have said is any different than what I just said, but then I don't think that Protagorous said anything different either. I just don't see what has gotten you so hot and bothered.

[Roscoe]

As you can planely see, nullification requires the JURY TO ACQUIT, not be hung.

But delaying justice, wasting the court's time and creating additional costs for the taxpayers also serves the agenda of some.

[Protagoras]

You could have saved 25 posts if you had posted this earlier. I never said you were wrong, I merely asked you to post a definition by someone other than yourself.

The nit picking point was yours, it is irrelevant to the reality of jury nullification. I never asserted a definition, I stated repeatedly that my posts were my opinion.