A jury can weigh the merits of a law, decide that the law is unfair, and nullify it in the case being tried. Although no nullification was exercised a good candidate for nullification would have been the case of the farmer who had his tractor confiscated and was forced to pay a fine for running over a Kangaroo Rat. I think most of us are aware of that case. It was widely reported in the news.
The jury is the last check the people have against oppressive government without having to resort to violence.
The jury is the last check the people have against oppressive government without having to resort to violence.
I have never heard it put quite that way but it does seem a high probability. Could the government actually be in support of violence since their attempt to void jury nullification could realistically result in the people rising up against the government via force rather than the courts or constitution.
From Amendment VI: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed..."
An impartial jury judges the facts and the law as they pertain to the case.
Any judge that does not answer in the affirmative to that statement has proven his ignorance and/or incompetence and has thus demonstrated he or she is unqualified to be a judge. Alas, the great irony for judges is that they must answer in the negative to even be considered for the job. As the saying goes, "I was doing my job" or "I was just following orders". Yeah right, honest/equal justice be damned.