On a lark, I actually went and READ Dougherty, which is the second case cited by this professor (the first case he cites is from 1794).
After reviewing the history of jury nullification, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. circuit actually held the OPPOSITE of what he claims - jury nullification may theoretically exist, and was useful in the days of common law, limited case research ability, and colonial quarrels with Britain, but it is a dangerous principle, could cause anarchy, and will not be charged to the jury. So much for that, I didn't read any further because he's being too disingenuous for me.
This organization, the Fully Informed Jury Association, also appears on antiwar.com radio, and is looking for a community organizer for the Ft. Lauderdale area. That is, to say the least, odd.
I thought that part was a bit odd myself.
Personally, I think I would not put my trust in a judicial panel who so readily dismissed the jury’s perrogative to be both the judge of both the facts and the law by claiming it is a dangerous principle. Even more dangerous is a judiciary that claims only a judge can rule on matters of law and that the jury must blindly accept what he says.
He said, yes I killed her, and she deserved it. An all male jury found him not guilty.