[dialtone]

You are wrong and it is intentionally designed in the system. Why then have the verdict of a jury be final, with impossibility of re-trial, even in the eyes of Congress, if not to defend the Constitutional Right of Jury nullification?

From the same article[1] I quoted in another reply:

Theophilus Parsons, first Chief Justice of Massachusetts, explained:

The people themselves have it in their power to resist usurpation, without an appeal to arms. An act of usurpation is not obligatory; it is not law; and any man may be justified in his resistance. Let him be considered a criminal by the general government, yet only his fellow citizens can convict him; they are his jury, and if they pronounce him innocent, not all the powers of Congress can hurt him; and innocent they certainly will pronounce him, if the supposed law he resisted was an act of usurpation.

Or, as Patrick Henry put it:

Why do we love this trial by jury? Because it prevents the hand of oppression from cutting you off. This gives me comfort ” that as long as I have existence, my neighbors will protect me.

[1]: http://www.counterpunch.org/2003/02/05/a-guide-to-surviving-...

[rprasad]

As a former defense attorney, I would have loved it if jury nullification was intentionally designed into the system.

Unfortunately, it's not. It's just a great side effect of the right to a trial by jury.

In the American legal system, the modification of laws is left to the legislature. A jury can express its displeasure with a law by nullifying, but this has no legal import, since a different jury could easily convict. Thus, the primary method of expressing displeasure in a law...is to express displeasure in a law (by calling your local legislator).

[Illychnosis]

> As a former defense attorney, I would have loved it if jury nullification was intentionally designed into the system.

Jury nullification is part of law. Design is the part that dictates that you, as a defense attorney, cannot inform juries of their power. The prosecutors certainly won't.

Every American jury has the power* to ignore the law and make their own verdict if they decide that's how justice would be served.

Last year, it became part of New Hampshire law to protect the right of the defense to inform juries of their power:

http://reason.com/blog/2012/06/29/new-hampshire-adopts-jury-...

*edit: changed "right" to "power"

[newbie12]

The don't teach enough constitutional history these days, apparently. Trial by jury and the jury's ability to nullify the prosecution's factually correct case are part of the same, intentional design of the American judicial system.

[mindslight]

So while we're on the topic of jury nullification, could you please enlighten us how this subject is usually handled by defense attorneys for the times it would be advantageous to pursue?

A. Fully advocate for their client by informing the jury of their right to nullify in open court, especially if that nullification would involve disregarding mere administrative law in favor of a no-frills reading of constitutional law.

B. Refrain from informing the jury to avoid risking their relationship with the court or bar, but inform their client of this conflict of interest so that the client may interject partial self-representation if prudent.

C. Avoid informing the client of their rights or this major conflict of interest, but pretend they're still being fully represented.

[btilly]

You have claimed to be a former defense attorney, which anyone can claim, and yet your comment history is full of incorrect statements about the law.

Whether this reflects on your honest or competence I do not know, but I do not trust anything you claim. Former defense attorney or not.

[jacquesm]

It may adequately explain the 'former'.