Justice Department again fails to re-indict New York Attorney General Letitia James, AP source says

Juries really aren't there to decide whether or not it was appropriate to do a crime. They're there to decide if a crime happened or not.

I don't know that it's a good thing, but it would make it hard to to get convictions for people that are likeable or who have good excuses, or are some sort of "pillar of the community" type. A judge would probably tell you that those things are meant for sentencing.

Jury nullification is a byproduct of a couple other rules.

• jury verdicts can't be appealed based on outcomes
• double jeopardy isn't allowed
• jurors can't be held responsible for verdicts

This means that if a jury returns not guilty, it's over, which is what allows jury nullification. It's not brought up because it's technically a subversion of the process. It also has historically been problematic, and got people guilty of lynching off. The preferred alternative is an affirmative defense.

Juries are given very detailed instructions that are agreed upon by both sides and the judge. How these are worded is generally as critical as any testimony during the trial. These instructions generally a sort of flowchart of questions that determines the verdict. Jury nullification requires explicitly ignoring those instructions.