Anyone have thoughts about jury nullification?

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

I was watching the interview with one of the Zimmerman jurors saying that she felt bad because he got away with murder, and it seems like jury nullification should have been an option for them. Obviously, nullification resulting in a conviction instead of an acquittal is less effective because appeals are a possibility, but I can't see anything in the materials I'm reading that says jury nullification can't be used that way. If, by the letter of the law, a murder is legal it should be a possibility for a jury to declare the defendant guilty because the law itself is wrong and a not guilty verdict would be unjust.

With a lot of the other stuff going on, the Zimmerman case isn't the only thing that's got me thinking about it, but I feel like it's a good jumping off point to start conversations with people and maybe raise enough awareness to make a difference in jury pools.

I've been reading materials from FIJA, but it'd be good to bounce things off the board. More folks with functioning bullshit filters looking at source material is always a big help

[Forsooth]

i read about nullification recently, oddly enough

seems like it has a huge potential for abuse and stupidity if a  persuasive nutjob got into a jur
but a stack of intelligent jurors could give out the best kinds of justice with it

only other thing i know about it, is that the jury is not legally required to be informed that they have the right to interpret the laws involved in a case

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

i read about nullification recently, oddly enough

seems like it has a huge potential for abuse and stupidity if a  persuasive nutjob got into a jur
but a stack of intelligent jurors could give out the best kinds of justice with it

only other thing i know about it, is that the jury is not legally required to be informed that they have the right to interpret the laws involved in a case

It was used to protect fugitive slaves in the north prior to the Civil War (good) and bootleggers during prohibition (meh) and white supremacists in the segregated south (bad). Part of what I'm working on is a proper admonishment to only resort to nullification if the law itself is being used improperly (selective or vindictive prosecution) or the law itself is truly odious. "He's a good kid" isn't enough to nullify a verdict.

[Doktor Howl]

I've sat on juries.

They can't make me decide one way or the other.

The judge can override a guilty verdict, but not an innocent verdict. 

That's all you need to know.

[Left]

I've sat on juries.

They can't make me decide one way or the other.

The judge can override a guilty verdict, but not an innocent verdict. 

That's all you need to know.

Funny, nobody EVER wants me on a jury.

I'd be happy to inform other jurors about their rights to nullify crappy laws.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I have never served on a jury, and I have been called many times.

They are supposed to only let you out of it (on account of hardship) three times, so after that I just started ignoring the notices.

[Left]

I have never served on a jury, and I have been called many times.

They are supposed to only let you out of it (on account of hardship) three times, so after that I just started ignoring the notices.

I show up and make it obvious I think hard about things when I end up in the pre-selection pool...the legal teams prefer stupidity, methinks.

[Faust]

I'm not sure how nullification would work here, doesn't it operate under the assumption that yes the action that the person is accused of occurred (killing, robbing, smoking weed, etc) but that no crime was committed.

This would be the inverse.
That the action was legal and that they should have the right to prosocute the person despite that. That sounds fitting with US policy but would basically mean an end to any kind of Just process.

If I understand the Zimmerman case correctly he was found not guilty (not innocent) because they couldn't establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, that sounds normal enough to me but correct me if I am wrong.

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

A jury can't make up new charges, but they can vote guilty on charges that are proposed even if the evidence supports the theory that the action happened but was not criminal. These kinds of guilty verdicts can be thrown out by a judge and they can be appealed, unlike a jury nullification resulting in acquittal.

So, in this case the jury could have voted guilty on second degree murder, but they could not convict him of human trafficking or copyright infringement. If they did convict, the judge could have thrown out the verdict, and if the judge let it stand Zimmerman would have appealed.

It also was possible for any of the three women who went into deliberations convinced that a murder took place to stand their ground and hang the jury, forcing a second, less-shitty trial.

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

The above is my understanding based on what I've read in the last couple days, I am not a lawyer, etc. etc.