Isn’t it absurd that a prosecutor and judge will tell a jury to find a defendant guilty even if jury members think what the defendant did — possessing or selling an illegal drug, for example — should be legal? Doesn’t such a restriction on jurors fly in the face of the historical power of jurors to judge both the facts and the law instead of being just another tool for enforcing the many volumes of statutes, regulations, and case law that define criminal offenses in America?

In a new outstanding video presentation, Future of Freedom Foundation President Jacob Hornberger answers these questions and more, presenting the history of American jury nullification dating back to British law as well as the still exercisable power of a juror to decide a defendant is not guilty because the juror disagrees with the criminalization of the defendant’s actions.

Continue reading at the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.