Idiot. No, you didn't. That's one of a jury's functions, to catch those cases where a literal interpretation of the law would produce an injustice. (Not saying that's the situation with this defendant, I know nothing about the case. Just saying this moron has NO concept of a jury's Constitutional responsibilities). The defendant should be able to sue the court for failing to provide him with a pool of competent jurors.
90% of Americans have NO concept of a jury’s Constitutional responsibilities. Of the other 10%, 8% of them don’t have the backbone to exercise their Constitutional duties if it would make them the only person in the room to be doing so.
How’s that saying go about being a patriot? Something about other will join you when the majority agrees.
Yeah, well there's the problem. Who's definition of "injustice" will the jury use?
Would you be keen on a jury with that attitude if you were on trial for shooting someone in self-defense? ...and the jury was a bunch of gun-grabbers? It would be a big "injustice" in some people's eyes for anyone to be set free after shooting some poor, disadvantaged kid.
Jury nullification is a dangerous double-edged sword.