What surprises me is how few people in the US serve on juries with any significant passion for the role they play. A long time ago I was on a jury concerning DUI. The accused was found sleeping it off in his car. By law, being in a car of which you possess the keys constitutes "operating" a vehicle. I might have gone along with convicting him of this except he had a prior conviction and mandatory sentencing laws required him to go to jail for a year. That bothered me when he appeared to have done the right thing (not drive). It was a steep escalation from revocation to incarceration.
So, as we entered the jury room everyone casually agreed "guilty" and were in a hurry to get home. I decided I'd nullify the law because it seemed unjust. I started talking around it, making up holes in the officers' testimony. I was astonished how everyone said "ok, not guilty" within 30 seconds of me starting what I thought would be 2-3 days of stonewalling.
The key is to never mention nullification. Never say anything like "we have the right to simply not convict for whatever reason we choose." You have to talk around it, explaining why you can't convict based upon the evidence. Even if the guy admits guilt, "I think he may be insane. I don't know. I don't trust his confession." Anything that's a "reasonable doubt." Never say it's because you disagree with the law.
There's a very long tradition of jury nullification in the US. The founding generation used it against the King's laws designed to punish rebels. It was a valid form of civil disobedience. Another check and balance. It puts the executive veto power in the hands of the people *when* they operate within the official framework of the judicial system. This is a lot like the militia laws (and right to arms) placing the power to control martial violence in the hands of the people. The original militia was intended to allow community members to "veto" government use of force. Community members could simply refuse to show up, or they could resist a standing army. (But, it had to be done within the official framework of the militia. Not private militias like we have today, which seem to spring up when gun controls are proposed.).
It's interesting to note how the institution of the militia fell into disuse between 1903 and 1930 as the National Guard was created. The powers of that time didn't like how the militia couldn't be counted upon to carry out orders. They didn't like the democratic nature of wielding lethal force. That's very similar to what's happened to Jury Nullification (also called Fully Informed Juries). Today the judge will instruct the jury that all they can do is consider the evidence. "If the evidence is strong enough, you must convict." Like that video said, if anyone mentions JN or FIJ, they'll be removed from the jury (and perhaps put in jail for contempt).
So, those were two institutions intended to put power in the hands of the people on a case-by-case basis.
