We are talking about jurors being informed that its OK for them to vote not-guilty even when they know that the defendant is-guilty, just because they disagree with the law.
And if more of their race are convicted of that law than the others, well it must be an unjust law in their view, they nullify it.
Too bad if the victim was your family
An 18-month federal probe into one of Baltimore's most racially sensitive homicide cases ended yesterday when prosecutors decided not to pursue a civil rights indictment against an African-American man acquitted of killing Korean-American student Joel J. Lee.
The decision disappointed Lee's father and Asian-American leaders, who were outraged in 1995 when a nearly all-black jury acquitted Davon Neverdon. Neverdon was found not guilty despite testimony from four witnesses who said they saw him shoot Lee in the face during a $20 mugging in Northeast Baltimore.
U.S. ends rights probe in Lee death Evidence in slaying considered too weak for federal indictment January 16, 1997 Balt Sun
To my knowledge, we haven't seen this yet. The Simpson case certainly comes close. The "not guilty" verdict was credited with the doubt caused by evidence that suggested some racial insensitivity among the LAPD. Total BS and they certainly got it wrong.
I think if we get into a situation where juries acquit simply because a criminal is black, the country is in total chaos anyway. I don't know, maybe we are getting close to this day.