I’ve been reading a lot about jury nullification, and I get that jurors have the power to acquit someone even if the law technically says they’re guilty. But what I don’t get is—why is this something that exists, yet courts don’t allow it to be talked about during a trial?
If it’s a legitimate part of the legal system, why is it treated like a secret? Would a juror get in trouble for mentioning it during deliberations? And what would happen if someone brought it up during jury selection?
I’m just curious how this all works in practice. If jurors can ultimately do whatever they want, what stops them from using nullification all the time?
You’re acting like you found some defensible loophole but your cageyness means you know it won’t work if the facts were laid out before jury selection.
The question isn’t about “the” law it means “any” law. The judge is asking you if you’re going to enforce the law for which they are under trial, not if you’re here to enforce the constitution. If that is what you wanted to do you would vote guilty and let them appeal to the Supreme Court because they are the constitution people, not you.