The OJ Jury is a great example of how Jury Nullification does work very well. What failed there was the jury selection process.
But say we are jury selected in the case of a man brought up on charges possibly because he was a member of currently extremely prosecuted religious group, where such trumps charges are in the time and place, common. Say a Coptic Christian in Cairo. It I’m a Copt on that jury in Cairo, I am NOT going to convict if there is even an wacky outside chance the Copt did not cut his wife’s head off.
A less inflammatory and REAL example would be that jury in south Jersey some months ago who were directed by the vile (now retired) Judge to consider only the facts presented to them in trial per the law as he spelled it out to them. The case was a man who was moving to north Jersey and had his guns in his trunk to move them to his new place — that is allowed under even the very strict New Jersey law.
He was stopped and his guns discovered by police, still it was a permissible action. But the police and prosecutors of that district for whatever reason — likely animosity towards citizen RKBA — arrested him and he went to trial on serious felony charges.
The Judge refused to allow testimony that the man was carrying the guns for the legal (in NJ) purpose of moving to a new place. The Jury was sympathetic to the man. Three times they came back to ask to clarify the law, or ask for other facts, they did ask if they could nullify. The Judge said that they must rule according to (evilly limited) facts heard in the court and the law as he had stated it — the Judge firm, even demanding and perhaps rude and abusive to the Jury in his demeanor. Clearly, imo, he was dominating them to force a particular verdict.
The Jury did abide the Judge’s direction. They found the defendant guilty. He went to jail.
THAT JURY NEEDED TO KNOW IT COULD NULLIFY.
What happened to that man was a perversion of Justice. Abuse!
It wasn’t by some OJ Jury, it was by a respected and long-serving Judge.
That’s WHY Justice needs Jury Nullification.
How about just knowing the law and facts of the case? The problem in that case was that the crook on the bench decided to convict the defendant, and put on a phony trial in he fed lies to the jury. The judge, not the jury, made the real decision in that case.
BTW, if I had my druthers, I would pass a law providing that defendants have the right to demand that any portions of the Constitution, statutes, regulations, ordinances, etc. that the defendant believe are relevant must be made available to the jury. For a judge to forbid such a request would be a gross criminal offense. Any defendant who would be prevented after the enactment of this statute would be entitled to a new trial if he could show that there was any possibility that a reasonable jury might conceivably have found in that information a basis for issuing a decision more favorable to him (note that this is explicitly a looser standard than would be required in most appeals, which typically require that it be likely that a jury would have issued a different decision).
BTW, to give some real teeth to the law, I would also provide that an affirmative defense be failable in a trial for homicide, assault, or other such offense: that such action was necessary for the protection of society, on the basis that the victim had at in some previous trial, since the enactment of this statute, unlawfully withheld from a jury, for the purpose of increasing the likelihood of convicting someone, portions of laws, statutes, etc. that the defense at that earlier trial wanted available to it. Judges probably wouldn't like that provision, but they'd have a simple way to avoid it: follow the law.
I hate to open this can of worms, but I always thought the jury got a bad rap there. It was a case of lousy, starstruck prosecutors getting outclassed by private sector lawyers. The jurors I saw didn't think he was innocent. They took that pesky "reasonable doubt" thing seriously.
In the same era, the original Simi Valley Rodney King jury also got a bad rap. They nailed the brute who did most of the beating and his superior, but the other two weren't nearly guilty of the stuff they were charged with. Again, crappy, headline grabbing prosecutors didn't do their jobs and people blamed the jury and tried to make it a racial thing. It wasn't.
Judge Ito did not maintain control of the courtroom, and the prosecution's work appeared sloppy. Had the prosecution delivered a better case but the jury acquitted anyway, it might be reasonable to suspect nullification. As it was, I see no reason to fault the jury for making the decision they did, given what was presented to them. Bear in mind that if a jury observes certain sloppiness from the prosecution, they could regard as plausible the notion that other sloppiness by the prosecution might have obscured what would otherwise be exculpatory evidence. A juror who comes to such a conclusion should acquit.