I am currently interested in writing a commentary article on the issue of Jury Nullification. This issue has been brought up more than once in the forums and maybe even in an article, but there are some points that I wish to argue in my own article. My position is to distinguish the common law powers of the jury from civil disobedience. As I see it, when a jury returns a not-guilty verdict when the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt committed the act (be cause the act is not wrong or at least should not be punished by the law), the jury is refusing to take part in an unjust act. The jury is not changing the law or exercising some special power, but instead delegitimizing the law by refusing to take part in its enforcement. Therefore, it should not be referred to as "jury nullification", as the jury doesn't actually have the power to nullify or veto anything. Its should be very clear that a jury cannot be punished for returning a verdict that the judge, or anyone else, didn't like. The true issue is, should a judge allow parties to a case encourage the jury to vote on their "conscience" or take the actions necessary to maintain the jury as a "finder of facts". I will be arguing for the latter. Can anyone tell me if this has been argued before in the forum and where?
| 
