Opinion of Jury Nullification

[Del Tachi]

Of course juries have this right; its juries' ultimate responsibility to judge the evidence presented in the case and arrive at a verdict; therefore, juries can't make a "wrong" decision.  

Should juries be informed of this right?  I don't think its really necessary; if someone sitting on a jury had a qualm with whatever law someone was being charged under, it would seem like to me that that juror would establish on his own accord a somewhat higher standard of evidence needed to convict the person.  I know that I would.  That of itself is kind of an almost pseudo-type of jury nullification.  Interestingly, all it would only take one juror to do this. 

Southern juries didn't have to be informed of jury nullification to refuse to convict lynch mobs, and Northern juries likewise didn't need to hear about it from lawyers/judged to refuse to convict persons under fugitive slave laws.  I imagine that juries today nullify in hundreds of cases each year, so JN is alive and well as it stands already.    

[Del Tachi]

The question as to whether or not juries should be informed of it strikes me as pretty silly. The fact that jurors have this right should be blatantly obvious to anyone.

And I'd have to say I'm for it, since there are certain laws (the most obvious of course being marijuana) that I simply would not be willing to ever convict someone of as a matter of conscience. So it'd be kind of hypocritical for me to say that's wrong.

If you were selected to serve on a jury for a marijuana case, and you were asked something to the effect of  "Do you have any beliefs that would prevent you from making a decision based solely on the law?" (which is standard practice in Mississippi), what would your response be?

[Del Tachi]

Was the OJ murder case jury guilty of jury nullification?

That's an interesting question, but an impossible one to answer.

Jury nullification is one of those strange things that exists in theory but doesn't really exist in practice even though it definitely does happen somewhat regularly I'm convinced.   Its not as if we can point to specific cases as examples of jury nullification and say that "the jury got it wrong" because juries can't be wrong; its their job to weigh the evidence and arrive at a verdict and the conclusion that they reach can't be criticized as not meeting certain standards because, at the end of the day, the jury is the standard.  Now, I suppose we could count the OJ Simpson trial as an example of JN if we could find a juror from that case who admits who having knowingly nullified, but to my knowledge I don't think such has happened.