Yep, she violated Navy Patriot’s “keep your mouth shut” rule.
au contraire mon ami
From the Linked Article:
...........The Evolution of a Doctrine. "It is obvious from the context of the entire case they prosecuted her for her verdict. If they can punish jurors for their verdicts, the jury system is just a living fossil brought out to harm people. There is nothing left if jurors can't be independent and vote their own consciences."The 62-page appellate ruling was based not on whether nullification had been used, but whether allowing jurors to testify about conversations that took place during jury deliberations violates the sanctity of those deliberations. "You can't use evidence of juror deliberations in a court proceeding," explained Eugene Volokh, a constitutional law professor at the University of California at Los Angeles. "Certainly, this is something that encourages jurors to be as candid as possible during the proceeding." ........
...........As for Kriho, she could be retried, but the appeals court ruled that the opinions she revealed during jury deliberations, which were used as evidence to convict her, will not be admissible in any future case against her.......
Au contraire yourself, the reason she was charged with contempt in the first place was because she told the judge she discussed nullification with the rest of the jury, and she acquitted on the basis of nullification, not the weighing of evidence.
While it is her Constitutional right to do so, it will take better than a decade, and all your wealth, to put a dictatorial tyrant (the correct spelling of "judge") back in his place.
You never tell a judge anything or discuss nullification with any part of the court during the trial.
You just render your verdict and state "I have fully examined all the evidence and my conscience requires me to acquit/convict."
You do not discuss anything further, period, that's the end and the judge is helpless.