Jurors are not required to follow the judge's instructions, (which are often borderline criminal themselves). A juror has a right under common law to dispense with the law itself and is not required to rule accordingly.
Jurors are not required to follow the judge's instructions, (which are often borderline criminal themselves). A juror has a right under common law to dispense with the law itself and is not required to rule accordingly.
I agree and it's a "conservative principle" to not follow the judge's instructions or even follow the law itself -- as a "bulwark for freedom" in this country -- when it is necessary for a jury to do so.
I said the following in another post on the Palin e-mail hacking trial ...
Well, in this case, I would convict the guy too...
BUT, aside from this guy, I will say that the jury's job is also to prevent unjust laws from being carried out on citizens, and "Jury Nullifiction" is also within the rights of a jury to carry out.
I know that Judges and DA's and other authorities don't like this -- but this is a good conservative protection for this country and its people...
Fully Informed Jury Association
As I said, I'm not talking about this guy, but I'm talking about the duty of the jury in cases where there are unjust laws and "Jury Nullification" comes into play. That's a duty of the jury, too.