[TChris]

Jury nullification is valid.

Not if you actually believe the Constitution.

I've read and read, but can't seem to find any provision in the Constitution for jury nullification. It certainly could have been included, had the Fathers so desired.

The Constitutional provision for changing the law is via the legislature. Period.

Jury nullification is an end-run around the Constitution which is absolutely no different than judicial activism. It's just that the perpetrators sit in a different place in the courtroom when they commit the act.

If you are in favor of jury nullification, but against judicial activism, then you, FRiend, are a hypocrite.

[LearsFool]

I've read and read, but can't seem to find any provision in the Constitution for jury nullification.

Jury nullification is inherent in jury trial.

Is there any other reason for having twelve of one's peers - one's PEERS, in "the State or district wherein the crime shall have been committed" - on a jury? Can't a judge judge the facts just as well?

Trial by jury has, since its inception, taken judgment out of the hands of political authorities and placed it squarely in those of the community - where it by rights ought to be and, in the final analysis, will be. Authority for jury nullification is the very essence of trial by jury.

[editor-surveyor]

I guess you don’t read well, and are logically impaired.

The constitution does not provide for instruction of juries. Juries do sit in judgement first of the law, and second of the defendant. A jury that has been instructed is invalid.