[Osborn F Enready]

I am posting this verbatim, because it is very well written.
This post comes from here originally: http://www.e-thepeople.org/article/52197/view

Today, boys and girls, we shall discuss the concept of Jury Nullification. Don't let the big word at the end scare you, it isn't as complicated as it seems. We already know that our great republic was founded on the concept of people power and the concept of jury nullification exists to further that end. We already know what a jury is. It is a group of twelve regular people pulled from the voter lists to decide fault at a trial. They have the duty of dispensing justice at the end of a trial. They are instructed by the judge as to the particulars of the law and then hear the cases of both the prosecution and the defense. They are then ushered into another room where they decide the fate of the accused. Everyone on the same page so far? Good, it is time to move on to the scary, long word at the end of the phrase. Nullification is of course, a word that means "to nullify", to make something undone, like it never existed. Together, the phrase jury nullification means that a jury has the right to basically nullify a law. Even if they believe the accused is guilty of breaking the law they can look at the law itself and decide that the law was improperly applied or improperly passed, (meaning legislators had no constitutional authority to write such a law). They can even determine that while the law was broken, the accused didn't intend any harm and indeed, harmed no one, and let him walk free. There is a reason why one of our Constitutional rights is to a trial by jury. The founders wanted a jury of our peers to review the case, not to leave it to a judge to decide. They also wanted a jury of peers to review the law, because law is not always just. In this way, they made the jury higher than the prosecutor and the higher than the judge. I have heard that many states have made this concept illegal and that juries are not informed of their full rights before trial. I thought I would inform you of these rights and ask you to share your states laws in this matter and for your thoughts Remember people, you run this country, don't let the politicians and lawyers take that away from you. “The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.” John Jay, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1794 “The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts.” Samuel Chase, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1796 “The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact.” Oliver Wendell Holmes, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1920 “The jury has an unreviewable and irreversible power . . . to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge. The pages of history shine upon instances of the jury’s exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge; for example, acquittals under the Fugitive Slave Law.” U.S. v. Dougherty, 1972