Jury Nullification: Our last defense against the state

Courtesy of Reason, I have found an interesting Boston Globe article on a jury nullification case.

Jury nullification is when a juror votes to acquit a defendant who has clearly broken the law based on a reasoning that the law is unconstitutional or immoral.  In the 19th century, many juries would go against the law to help a freed slave retain freedom, a just cause.  Nowadays, most nullification cases (like this one) are for drug related crimes.  In this specific trial, the juror correctly stated that federal laws prohibiting the possession of cocaine are unconstitutional because it took a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol.  By that standard, there would also need to be an amendment to ban cocaine.  There is no such amendment.  This was a case of federal law, NOT state law.  

In the above referenced trial, the juror was removed by the judge.  Judges really hate jury nullification.

I see it as our last defense, and so do countless others, such as Ron Paul.  If you are ever in a case where the defendant is guilty as hell of a crime that should not be illegal (e.g. gambling, drugs, prostitution, etc.) vote to acquit, no matter what the judge says.  But unlike this guy, never admit to what you're doing.  Vote with your conscience.  Laws change, morals usually do not.

For more information jury nullification, please visit this site: http://www.fija.org/