jury nullification

     A group or party (whose name escapes me ) has been making a case, or attempting to make a case, for "jury nullification". The argument begins by accepting the notion that "jury nullification" is some kind of a legal right, by precedent, in the United States. It isn't. "Jury nullification" is the term used to describe a jury's refusal to convict, even when the defendant seems obviously guilty, and the case against him or her seems to have been plainly made. Juries have done this, but not because they have the "right".  If  a prosecuting attorney could prove that the jury had refused to convict, the members of the jury could be charged with obstruction of justice, among other things.
     "Jury nullification" got a good name when the jury hearing the case against John Peter Zenger refused to convict Zenger of sedition against the British crown. Zenger had published an opinion piece opposed to the British government's policies. In this case, American history looks on the jury's refusal to convict Zenger as patriotism--and rightly so.
     "Jury nullification" got a bad name, however, when white juries in the American South refused to convict members of the Klan, or white persons accused of crimes against blacks. Since no one can be tried twice, the federal government intervened and tried some of those acquitted through "jury nullification" of violating the federal civil rights statutes.