From what I’ve seen and read, the judiciary system is much more opposed to it here in the UK, judges have more ways to bully jurors, but if a jury makes a decision and only explains it by saying that they’ve complied with the judge’s instructions, there isn’t much the judge can do.
My understanding in the US (generally, given all our various types of jurisdictions) is that the concept cannot be discussed by a jury/juror, at risk of a mistrial.
Considering how many ancient laws are still on the books but “generally understood” to be not enforced, and how many rabid DAs we have, in some cases nullification is the best shot at a fair trial.
Appeals are useful, but take significant time and money. So much simpler to have the jury come to an understanding that the law is ridiculous on its face and from a bygone era.
The UK variant on a Constitution has always intrigued me, being ~unwritten, but I’ve never had the time and energy to delve too deeply into the underlying ideas.
From what I’ve seen and read, the judiciary system is much more opposed to it here in the UK, judges have more ways to bully jurors, but if a jury makes a decision and only explains it by saying that they’ve complied with the judge’s instructions, there isn’t much the judge can do.
My understanding in the US (generally, given all our various types of jurisdictions) is that the concept cannot be discussed by a jury/juror, at risk of a mistrial.
Considering how many ancient laws are still on the books but “generally understood” to be not enforced, and how many rabid DAs we have, in some cases nullification is the best shot at a fair trial.
Appeals are useful, but take significant time and money. So much simpler to have the jury come to an understanding that the law is ridiculous on its face and from a bygone era.
The UK variant on a Constitution has always intrigued me, being ~unwritten, but I’ve never had the time and energy to delve too deeply into the underlying ideas.