[E. Pluribus Unum]

It's called jury nullification. Any juror can judge the law rather than the defendant if that's what he/she decides to do.

[PA Engineer]

It's called jury nullification. Any juror can judge the law rather than the defendant if that's what he/she decides to do.

Beat me. The power of the Jury is suppose to be absolute and not written off as "biased opinion". Maybe some people need to go back to Zenger to get a greater appreciation of the importance of the Jury.

[Bhoy]

“It’s called jury nullification. Any juror can judge the law rather than the defendant if that’s what he/she decides to do.”

This is a really important point. Not sure if this situation is the same. Here they couldn’t seat a jury because no jurors were selected as they were up front and said no i wouldn’t convict.

Jury nullification as i understand it is that after jury is seated they refuse to convict on grounds that the law itself is not valid. Judges do not inform the jury that is a possible outcome.

I remember seeing flyers calling for “fully informed jury” amendment.

It may be a valuable tool in confronting a central government takeover. It is from English common law I believe and just somehow never got off the books. Most of the time judges are very intimidating to jurors in their jury instructions — about which many deals are made between counsel and court prior to jury instruction and retirement.

I remember a 40’s historical movie wherein the jurors refuse to convict and the judge locks them up WITHOUT TOBACCO and their retort: Are we not an English jury?