You Should Know

Conversely, it's a great way of getting out of jury duty if you mention it during jury pool selection in criminal cases - the prosecution will kick you out as quickly as possible. It's why I haven't served on a jury for over thirty years.

There's miscarriages of justice every day in this country. We need this attitude in cases where they're trying someone for no charge other than resisting arrest just as much as that specific case.

you can say you show bias towards the case, by citing any reasons, you will get strike from the juror pool most of the time .additionally, they dont even pay you well for your time, you can easily lose alot money a day for not working your job, in alot of places they can pay you a pittance of 5-15/day, in cali its 15 only a day. theres also the issue that your job will not look kindly for missing a lot of days.(despite what the law says the employee cant retaliate) they can do other things.

You are meant to "nullify" silently.

I disagree, we also want people to nullify laws that are unjust, such as prosecuting a woman who decides to have an abortion. This is one of the means the people retain to fight tyranny.

That goes both ways, people can convict without evidence

The guilty form of nullification is much weaker. A judge can overrule the jury. The case could be appealed.

In contrast, a non-guilty verdict is final, there is no way overturn it and there is no appeals.

That goes both ways, people can convict without evidence

There's a fail safe for this, a judge can override a juries guilty vote but not a ruling of innocence.

Still, not ideal because it comes down to one person not agreeing with the jury, but at least there is some protection

so it’s tricky to nullify without purgery except for very very special cases.

Assuming you meant perjury, it is not tricky in the slightest. You vote your conscience and don't say something stupid like "I lied during voire dire, nyah ah ahhh!".

we want jury nullification to come from individual conclusions that this law does not apply despite the circumstances, and not because they know they can.

There is an ongoing shift towards fascism, and at least for now the courts still have power over whether or not people get to walk free.

So there is more to it than your letting on. We're gonna see cases of people who have done illegal things because the fascists in power decided to make existence defacto illegal for people.

An example of this is the bans on transgender people from using bathrooms other than their assigned sex. If I'm ever a juror on a case like that, I'm fucking voting not guilty, and everybody else should too.

they can threaten you, but they cant force you to choose a verdict other than what the prosecutors want, which is choosing not-guilty in despite of the evidence.

Nope.

You should be applying this to all juries you serve on. Accept those summonses. Get on those juries and use your brains.