Thread: Question for U.S. lawyers or jurists

On a side note, the ideals in that pamphlet are pretty common.

There is a rigorous process for screening potential jurors, and a variety of grounds on which a juror might be kicked out of the jury and replaced by a back-up. However, some nut-jobs still get onto juries, and there have been several well publicized cases where a defense lawyer argued for "jury nullification" in his closing remarks.

The reason a lawyer can get away with that, is that lawyers are allowed to say pretty much anything they want in their closing arguments. So, if a defense lawyer sizes up a jury and thinks that they might be swayed by arguments against a law, he/she may try it.

That's why the final word to the Jury comes from the judge. The last thing the Judge will do is "instruct the jury." This normally includes explaining what the law means, and a person would violate it, and instructing the jury that they may only consider evidence that was presented in the trial, etc.

edit* After reading JMS's response, I suppose I should point out that I am not a lawyer. I have seen jury trials first hand, however.