Nothing radical about that. We know the 93 percenters support it - after all they celebrated when OJ was let off.
I certainly hope so!
I also am a firm believer, but I will never advertise the fact. Which is a good thing. I have never been asked as a prospective juror if I believe in jury nullification; If I ever am, I will invoke my 5th amendment right.
Jurors should acquit, even against the judge's instruction... if exercising their judgment with discretion and honesty they have a clear conviction the charge of the court is wrong. -- Alexander Hamilton, 1804
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 instruction of the court. --John Adams, 1771
I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution. -- Thomas Jefferson, 1789
It really doesn’t matter whether she supports it or not. It is a fact of life and no one can stop a jury from reaching whatever decision they choose. I believe a judges instructions to the jury are about law and on what basis they can convict. A judge can tell the jury that if they believe A, B, and C, they must convict, but if they don’t their decision cannot be overturned due to double jeopardy.
Yes, it may infrequently lead to abuse (ala O.J.) but that's the price we pay for a valuable but imperfect system.
If, in fact, Palin professes a belief in jury nullification, it just further cements in my mind that she believes that the fundamental underpinnings of our country are the people NOT the collectivists who would migrate our country toward socialism.
Just another GOOD THING!