Juries are truly unto themselves, yet they have bizarre limits on them, set by the courts. For example, juries may not consult the Bible when reaching a decision, but they may flip a coin. Odd in that not long ago, witnesses had to swear on the Bible.
One of the grossest abuses by a juror that made me clench my teeth was during the trial of a child killer in California. The evidence was overwhelming, and conviction was almost guaranteed. To show his contempt for the proceedings, as the jury was led to the jury room to reach their verdict, he “flipped them off”. As expected, they found him guilty.
But after conviction, one juror chimed in and said: “I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, until he flipped us off. Then I knew he was guilty.”
ARGH! In my opinion, that should have been enough for a mistrial. But the courts didn’t think so.
And that is the acid test of juries. By *whatever* means they reach a verdict is generally okay. If that includes nullification, then fine.
But it will almost *never* be called nullification. Which is one of the ways the courts keep a lid on nullification.
During Prohibition, juries nullified so much that the government came up with an alternative means to the same end as conviction: the injunction.
A judge would enjoin a rum runner in such a way that his civil rights were stripped from him. He no longer had freedom to travel, freedom of association, and many other things. And if he violated the injunction, he would be hauled up before the judge, not a jury, to face a “contempt of court” citation, up to six months in jail.
The civil rights era was hard on juries. Lots of crimes became federal and were moved out of local jurisdictions. While its true that racist jurors were willing to let obviously guilty men go free, the cure was worse than the disease.
I despise hate crime laws for the same reason.