[neoconjob]

I like the Ghost's tagline. That and the beautifully dangerous notion of "nullification" made me think of the Fully Informed Jury Act and its adherents. Click the link and check them out for yourselves (if you haven't already)

http://www.fija.org/

(or cut and paste the link if it's not in hypertext)
Here's another article on the subject:

http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC28/DoigPls.htm

and one from our Lone Star friends:

http://www.juryduty.org/

contains the following thumbnail description:
"Jurors in criminal trials have the power to vote "not guilty" if enforcing the law would violate their conscience because juries cannot be punished for any verdict and jury acquittals cannot be overturned. An accused party's rights to trial by jury, where government is an opposing party, includes the right to inform the jurors of their power to judge the law as well as the evidence, and to vote on the verdict according to conscience."

Not exactly the subject of this thread, but definitely related... the natural, logical conclusion to the general move away from centralized judiciary power.

[jonestown]

"Jurors in criminal trials have the power to vote "not guilty" if enforcing the law would violate their conscience because juries cannot be punished for any verdict and jury acquittals cannot be overturned. An accused party's rights to trial by jury, where government is an opposing party, includes the right to inform the jurors of their power to judge the law as well as the evidence, and to vote on the verdict according to conscience."

Not exactly the subject of this thread, but definitely related... the natural, logical conclusion to the general move away from centralized judiciary power.
35 neoconjob

---

The current federal/state practice, -- of not allowing juries to hear information as to how the Constitution applies to the case at hand, - is definitely unconstitutional.

A fully informed, impartial jury is clearly one of our most basic rights.