General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: San Diego Mayor Urges Jury Nullification for MJ Dispensary Case [View all]rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)if you believe the law is unjust. If you say yes, bingo-bango your not seated. The judge might ask if you believe the law is unjust. If you lie and get seated only to later try for jury nullification, the judge would find that you lied when asked and you'd be held in contempt of court.
This sums up what I believe in the OJ case:
"Jury nullification" means that a jury finds a defendant innocent because the law itself is unjust, or is unjust in a particular application, and so should not be applied. Since no O.J. jurors expressed or implied opposition to the laws against murder, their verdict was certainly not an example of nullification in that sense. Nor did any jurors admit that they were persuaded of O.J.'s guilt but that they thought it was OK for him to have committed the murders anyway. Instead, jurors simply said that they accepted the defense argument that police carelessness and possible misconduct, motivated by racism, introduced an element of reasonable doubt against the prosecution's case. Since Judge Ito allowed the defense to make that argument (judges typically do not allow defense lawyers to make pleas for nullification), it certainly doesn't look like a nullification case. The jury may have been more suspicious of the police than was reasonable, but that was the luck of the draw in the jury pool -- a jury in Santa Monica later found O.J. liable for the murder, under the less rigorous standard of "preponderance of the evidence," rather than "beyond a reasonable doubt," in the civil case against him. "
from - http://www.friesian.com/nullif.htm