[ethanbond]

Juries are in no way bound to find even the most egregiously culpable defendants guilty of committing a crime. Choosing not to do so is not claiming the person did not break the law, but a claim that the law itself was wrong.

It happens every once in a while and is an important feature, not bug of the American judiciary.

[int_19h]

Jury nullification is a right, yes. However, jury instruction will very deliberately claim otherwise, and most people do follow it (and if, during jury selection, anyone hints at understanding what it is, they will almost certainly be excused). So realistically it's a very inefficient check.

[ethanbond]

> An impartial jury would be bound to rule him guilty

Then why are you pushing this lie forward? You should be doing your part to inform Americans of their rights, not mislead and disempower them.

[int_19h]

I consider jury nullification to be a right. I don't consider it to be a moral duty. An impartial jury, from that perspective, is the one that rules according to the law as written.

(I wouldn't do so - but I wouldn't consider myself impartial, either.)

[ethanbond]

An impartial [1] jury wouldn't immediately accept the word of the law as correct.

In US courts, the letter of the law itself is one of the disputants. It is just as vulnerable to questioning as the prosecutor's case and the defendant's case. That's why court rulings actually do affect the law itself (judicial precedence), they don't only affect a particular case. Again, this is all by design.

Regardless, your response is totally irrelevant. I didn't ask about the morality of anything. Your statement that a jury is obligated to find in any direction is totally false. There is no such obligation in the US, nor will there ever be.

[1] Impartial: Treating all rivals or disputants equally

[int_19h]

I believe there's some confusion here between legal and moral obligations. There's no legal obligation for the jury to find in any direction, yes - that is the basis for nullification. However, whether nullification is an intentional feature, or an unavoidable but undesirable side effect of the jury trial system, is very much up for debate. If you look at juror's oaths, they generally tend to embrace the latter approach. For example:

"You must not substitute or follow your own notion or opinion as to what the law is or ought to be. It is your duty to apply the law as I explain it to you, regardless of the consequences"

So when a juror nullifies, they break that oath. Insofar as that oath exists, it sets society's expectations of what the jury does.

"Impartial" was perhaps not the best choice of word for this, I agree.