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.
They ruled an obviously guilty person not guilty because of their own beliefs, which they put above the law. That is jury nullification to me. -Tom