Replies

Then you are a fool.

Why? Because I admitted that I don't remember the trial all that well and am hesitant to unilaterally say the jury was wrong?

Contamination does not make evidence MORE specific; it makes it LESS SO.

That is no excuse to say that the contamination does not impact the integrity of the evidence.
If there was contamination then the jury correctly decided to weigh that evidence as less than conclusive; as you yourself admit.

Your other points are simply arguing in circles. You are advocating that any juror should be firm in a belief that he is entitled to nullify any law at any time. This is a patently ridiculous proposition. Juries are assumed implicitly in both our legal constitution and Constitution, and explicitly in specific wording of our Constitution to be triers of fact and not of law. Were it otherwise, there would be no reason for judges to instruct juries on the narrow application of law to the instant case, nor would an appeals system exist which deals almost exclusively with errors in law.

Good job ignoring Noah Webster, contemporary of the founding fathers who said it was the juror's job to try the law.

But, you know, maybe we should take a look from someone involved with the law:

It is not only [the juror's] right, but his duty […] to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.
— John Adams

I know, he was one of those dirty lawyer-types… how about this?

.....it is usual for the jurors to decide the fact, and to refer the law arising on it to the decision of the judges. But this division of the subject lies with their discretion only. And if the question relate to any point of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the judges may be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law and fact.
— Thomas Jefferson

Oh, wait… he was a lawyer, too.
Let's try another.

Jurors should acquit, even against the judge's instruction...if exercising their judgement with discretion and honesty they have a clear conviction that the charge of the court is wrong.
— Alexander Hamilton

You need to work on your reading comprehension. I don't admit that the evidence was less than conclusive. I say -- unequivocally -- that anyone who defers to that jury is a fool.

That includes you. It does not include me.

I note you don't touch on the acquittal of Klansman as a matter of nullification abuse at all, except to say they will answer to God. That is already true [or false] the question of nullification notwithstanding, with which it has nothing to do.

As for the rest, there is nothing in your quotes that indicates that the Framers believed in wholesale nullification. Their position is the same as mine, and it isn't yours.