The doctrine is supported by these 1.) A jury can never be punished for a verdict it returns. 2.) Once acquitted, one can not be tried for the same crime again (double jeopardy).
Legal definition of "jury". Pay attention to "jury verdict" section. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/jury
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
The first case of jury nullification was in 1670 when Williams Mead and Penn were arrested for "unlawful assembly", violating a law designed to prevent any religious expression not approved by the crown. The judge demanded a return verdict of "guilty", but the jury repeatedly refused, resulting in the imprisonment of four jurors. A higher court ultimately overturned the ruling, establishing the common law practice of juries judging on conscience.
John Peter Zenger, who in 1735 was tried for the crime of "seditious libel". The British ruled Colony of New York did not permit its citizens freedom of press, and when Zenger published articles criticizing the Governor, he was arrested and jailed for 10 months. Any publication that "brings into hatred or contempt for government" or "civil unrest", even if truthful, was illegal. The evidence in the case proved that a crime had indeed been committed. Though he argued that the information he printed was true, therefore justification for the libel, this is not why Zenger was acquitted. The judge instructed the jury that their only responsibility was to find guilt because he had violated the letter of the law, and that the "issue of law" was to be left to the court to decide. Nonetheless, in a mere ten minutes the jury returned with a verdict of "not guilty".
Wiki-Seditious Libel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seditious_libel
The US government is a system of checks and balances, of which trial by jury is the final and most crucial; perhaps the true meaning of "government by the people, for the people". Thomas Jefferson is quoted as saying in 1789, "I consider [trial by jury] as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution." This is the only REAL tool WE THE PEOPLE have to keep government in check. We are not their minions; they are our servants. In 1895 the US Supreme Court ruled that although juries do have the right to judge both the facts of the case, and the law itself, and to disregard the instructions of the judge, no one is required to tell them of this right. One must wonder what the motive to keep the rights of a jury a tightly guarded secret.
In this old TV show, "At Issue", (from The National Endowment For Liberty), Ron Paul and a panel of experts discuss the power of the jury and expose the Judge's dirty little secret.
This article http://www.ehow.com/how_2140173_avoid-jury-nullification.html" caught my eye. It details how to avoid jury nullification (I guess to the rookie prosecutor). And for what purpose? To save time...money...something more sinister? Can we trust anyone who puts ANY objective above that of justice? The idea that public knowledge of the true power and responsibility of a jury creates a problem for the courts is outrageous! But the fact remains that this critical information is being intentionally withheld by most judges, making it quite obvious that the American public is in fact pitted against the very system we trust to deliver justice. That's a scary thought! But perhaps that mentality is where we went wrong. We really have no one to thank but ourselves. When did we stop paying attention and become so complacent? Time to make up for lost time. Get educated and then tell somebody-lots of people-the truth!
http://www.fija.org
