Only if you're prosecuting. If you're defending yourself, all you have to do is make it sound believable given the circumstances. A jury can find you not guilty just because they don't like the law. To defend yourself in a U.S. court you technically wouldn't need any evidence to substantiate any of your claims just so long as the jury buys it.
"A jury can find you not guilty just because they don't like the law."
This is not really the case. It would be tough to find all jurors didn't LIKE the law. The people sitting on the jury were asked questions during the selection process to make sure they are neutral. The question is, do they understand the law and the issues at hand.
The prosecuting team bears the burden of proof (obviously). The prosecutors are required to prove their version of the actual events. This means that the proposition that is being presented before the judge / jury by the prosecution must be proven to the extent that there could be no reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. The defense needs to convince the criminal jury so they are unable to find beyond a reasonable doubt, that this guy is guilty.
The defense seems to be casting doubt for the jury to consider from the get-go. Well played.
Do you honestly think that 12 random people are going to understand the law better than say a 3 judge panel?
There are a few benefits as for example Juries are harder to bribe and sequestered juries are harder to tamper with. But, the core issue and why they were considered so important is there a check on unjust laws or even just laws unjustly applied.
We have to assume not until/unless a lawyer shows up and says otherwise.
Rumors to the contrary, we do have a right to free speech, so you can say anything you want in a courtroom without being arrested, unless it causes immeidate danger (e.g. yelling "FIRE!").
When jury selection happens, I have heard that you can be rejected from being on the jury if you say (essentially) that you don't agree with the law. Not agreeing with the law is precisely what leads to jury nullification.
Good point. And I'm sure if the court is in session, talking out of turn about anything (including jury nullification) would get you held in contempt of court.
So, saying you'll be arrested for talking about jury nullification in court doesn't really give an accurate picture. Though it is probably technically true.
Are you claiming that jury members select a verdict at random? That there is no thought process happening in each of the individuals on the jury? Regardless of whether the juror's beliefs correspond to the actual reality of the case, that individual will still require some reason (evidence) for believing a particular thing. If you are trying to convince a juror of something, you will need to interact with that individual on such a level that you provide them with sufficient evidence for them to believe the claim you want them to believe.
This is separate from the rule of law in the US where a prosecution must prove its allegations beyond a reasonable doubt. It is true that a defense is not required to make any claims or present any evidence. However, depending on the jurors selected, in order to instill or preserve a reasonable doubt, some claims may need to be made. In order for a juror to believe a claim, that individual juror will need to find or receive some evidence sufficient for them to believe the claim.
Out of the millions of trials that have happened I would not be surprised if at least one jury that was undecided simply went with a coin flip or other random means.
Historically this may even have been a unusual, but not that uncommon practice. aka trusting in 'the gods' or some such.
Burden of proof in U.S. criminal cases often seems to be more of a suggestion than an actual mandate. With the way the legal system is structured, it's effectively guilty until proven innocent.
