Why are defense attorneys banned from mentioning jury nullification if it is a de facto power of the jury?

[episodic]

Question says it all in subject.

What are your thoughts? Will the power of nullification once again regain prominence ?

 

[shadow9d9]

Why? Because if juries constantly nullify laws, the laws will cease to have meaning.

 

[episodic]

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously held in 1969:

If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust, or that exigent
circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their
logic and passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide that decision.

 

[shadow9d9]

I know what jury nullification is.

 

[Rainsford]

I don't know the legal reason, but I wonder if it has something to do with problems arising from defense attorneys explaining legal concepts to the jury. A mention from the defense would certainly not just contain the words themselves, but more likely some explanation of them that may or may not fit with the intended purpose of the legal concept. I'm not sure how this applies to any other legal concept, but that's the only reason (other than trying to "hide" jury nullification) that I can think of.

 

[gopunk]

maybe something to do with court rules about jury instructions