Jury nullification is the final say on law. It is the last chance for a bad law to be eliminated. That it can be (and was in this case) misused is no reason to “throw the baby out with the bathwater”.
There is a reason that judges don’t like nullification by the jury: it is a reminder to them that they work FOR THE PEOPLE, not the government. THE PEOPLE are the ultimate arbiters of the law, not the black-robed tyrant wanna-bes.
Yeah like the OJ case. You would change your tune if you lived in DC. Jury nullification will become the norm as the demographics of this country change. It undermines the rule of law.
One thing nobody has discussed is the judge’s instruction to the jury. While I can see that they might have found him not guilty of murder, I can’t see why he got off on other charges, including manslaughter. However, if the judge (for reasons of his or her own) instructed them in such a way that they were unsure about what was required, or unsure if they could find differently on the different charges, that would certainly have skewed the verdict.
Don’t forget, you’re dealing not only with a jury from San Francisco, but a judge and whole court system that reflects the city. A judge’s instructions are very important.