I'm a big proponent of jury nullification. I've argued for years that it should be told to every jury - otherwise we have unequal justice between defendants with a jury that is aware of the ability to exercise jury nullification and defendants with a jury that is unaware of that prerogative.

BUT I can't go along with the misleading and unlawful suggestions of the FIJA.

First, many of their brochures fail to inform people that the exercise of jury nullification is the emasculation of the law. instead, they suggest that one is merely enforcing the law by nullifying it. Jurors need to know that they can emasculate the law, but they also need to understand exactly what they are doing so as not to take it lightly.

Second, their suggestion that prospective jurors lie to get on a jury to exercise jury nullification is abhorrent.

Third, they don't adequately warn jurors of the risk of exercising jury nullification. You can be prosecuted for violating you oath as a juror if you brag about it. Our traditions allow a jury to acquit for "any reason or for no reason" without being compelled to specify the reason. But once a juror opens his or her mouth all bets are off. If you ever exercise jury nullification then when asked for the reason you acquitted simply say "no comment."