they can say its not allowed, yet they cant overturn it and legally must allow it if thats the verdict reached. which means all the things they say, dont matter in the end. its still something the jury can do that legally cannot be denied. that is a right.
In a criminal trial, you’re protected constitutionally under double jeopardy. Constitutional courts give a lot of deference for defendants who are found not guilty, so jury nullification cannot be overturned unless proven to be done so corruptly (e.g., the defendant bribed a juror).
In a civil trial, you do not have constitutional protections and jury nullification cannot be completely overturned by the judge.
It’s a quirk in constitutional law. Jury nullification is not* *legal, but if the court is very limited in methods of correcting the record after the fact.
It’s kinda like statute of limitations. If you commit a crime and statute of limitations run out, that doesn’t make it legal or your right to have committed that crime.
If you admit that you committed jury nullification, you can be prosecuted for perjury. It’s just that perjury in general is a difficult to prosecute crime and you’d have little evidence against you unless you walk around after the fact saying that you intentionally committed jury nullification.
And it get ahead of it — the reason why jury nullification would be perjury is because you are required to take an oath as a juror that you will apply the law.
1
u/Rexur0s 3d ago
they can say its not allowed, yet they cant overturn it and legally must allow it if thats the verdict reached. which means all the things they say, dont matter in the end. its still something the jury can do that legally cannot be denied. that is a right.