> Juries are given specific instructions which includes something to the effect of "it is your duty to determine if the defendent violated the law, regardless o

> Juries are given specific instructions which includes something to the effect of "it is your duty to determine if the defendent violated the law, regardless of if you agree with the law". The possibility of jury nullification is not included in those instructions. No, they aren't[1]. And from my own experience of serving on a large fraud case, the Judge even went into detail about "You are to return a guilty verdict if you think they are guilty of the crime charged, paying special note that you must believe beyond reasonable doubt, that their actions constitute a crime." Later in the case this became apparent when the evidence from the defence suggested one of the defendants was under coercion. i.e. they did commit the act of fraud, but not criminally so. > Before being selected for a jury, jururs are asked (under penalty of perjury) if they can apply the law regardless of there personal feelings about it. Anyone who seriously considers nullification would be lying if they said yes, and would likely be excluded for saying no. No, they aren't[1]. In fact the opposite. We were asked to use our "worldly experience" to help us reach a verdict. [1] Full instructions (to judges) about Jury management in the UK is here: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/crown-court-compendium-part-i-jury-and-trial-management-and-summing-up.pdf https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/crown-co....