[Capt. Tom]

If they are to function effectively as the 'conscience of the community' jurors must be told that they have the power and the right to say no to a prosecution in order to achieve a greater good."

That's what happened in the OJ Simpson trial. - Tom

[1rudeboy]

One of the cases you may hear about jury nullification, if you have the misfortune of attending law school, is one where a jury acquitted some people of trespass for occupying someone's office in order to protest the Vietnam War.

So in other words, the miscreants skated because the jury disagreed with U.S. foreign policy. The libs love this kind of stuff.

[Cyber Liberty]

That's what happened in the OJ Simpson trial. - Tom

That's the most often cited case concerning jury nullification, and that's not at all true. The OJ Simpson jury wasn't nullifying the crime of First Degree Murder (saying "murder is OK!"), but rather a predominantly black jury declaring someone should go free because he's a famous black person.

"Putting one over on the man" is not the same thing as "jury nullification." It is, however, racist in the extreme.

[jschwartz]

No it was not what happened in the Simpson trial. In that case the chance of innocence was conclusively, without challenge, 3/infinity and those theoretical three were not associated with the victims. Practically speaking that means both asides agreed, one by proof and the other tacitly, that the chance of innocence was zero. The jury knew that too. The statement they made was that the white bi-ch deserved it. If that’s jury nullification, OK....so be it. I didn’t think Nicole deserved it, but that’s just me. Oh, I am an attorney in practice and academia; specialty field-science in the courtroom.

[Ditto]

That's what happened in the OJ Simpson trial. - Tom

Not correct. The OJ jury didn't rule that the State's law against murder was wrong. They decided for (insert motive here) they just didn't want to find him guilty.

The cases cited in the article above concerning the Fugitive Slave Act are a far better comparison. It was an unjust law that was without Constitutional basis.

The chances of any of us ever being empaneled on a trial where we disagree with the law to such an extent that Nullification is proper, are and I hope always will be very rare.

That said, I think it proper for jurors to understand their rights, and also know that they are not actors For the State, but are instead Watchdogs of the State. If the State goes too far with their laws, is is not only the juror's right, but also his responsibility to 'nullify' that law by finding the accused innocent.

In the end, the old "I was just following orders" excuse never works.