Cosmoline
Member
The basis is (as was pointed out in the GA state constitution) the fact that the jury is to be the trier of both the facts and the law. But the judges tell the jury that the judge is the trier of the law, and tha jury is to decide only on the basis of the facts, according to the law as explained by the judge. That's simply not what the laws say -- that's only what the judges say.
I have no qualms about nullification in criminal cases. And I object to the Supreme Court's decision to consider it a "power but not a right." It is an important part of the jury's role. But that doesn't mean the jury should replace the court as the arbiter of the law's meaning. For one thing, doing so would turn jury duty from a few weeks of work to years of work. Juries would have to sit in judgment on a complex array of motions, hear arguments and render decisions which could then be appealed. I don't think many people would stand for that on a juror's per diem! This has been my problem with the more radical "fully informed jury" pundits out there. They aren't even talking about nullification. They want to replace judges with some sort of bizarre permanent juries. Some even claim this should be the case in both civil and criminal cases.
In reality, nullification powers have nothing to do with juries judging the facts and the law. Rather, they are examples of the jury IGNORING the facts and the law for a greater good. The way it works is, the court instructs the jury on the law. The jury doesn't get to pull the law out of its nether regions. In rare circumstances where the jury feels that charges should never have been brought in spite of the law, or that the unique circumstances prevent conviction, then they can refuse to convict in spite of the law and the facts.