I think this exaggerates slightly the intent of the founders in embracing jury trial. There are supporters of juries who are less enthusiastic about nullification. They think juries guard against bias and corruption among judges. Otherwise, it would be hard to explain the origin and persistence of juries. The Bushel case that established jury nullification as a precedent involved the jailing of jurors, who because they refused to give the decision approved by the judge were held without food, water or heat overnight, and eventually fined by the judge for contempt of court. So at the time, the jury was accepted, but nullification had to be established.
The low opinion toward jury nullification among judges and prosecutors, and the tendency of judges to lie to juries in court about it, should make outsiders uncomfortable. There are other indications that the US court system has become corrupt, but this seems to be one of the clearest.
I think this exaggerates slightly the intent of the founders in embracing jury trial. There are supporters of juries who are less enthusiastic about nullification. They think juries guard against bias and corruption among judges. Otherwise, it would be hard to explain the origin and persistence of juries. The Bushel case that established jury nullification as a precedent involved the jailing of jurors, who because they refused to give the decision approved by the judge were held without food, water or heat overnight, and eventually fined by the judge for contempt of court. So at the time, the jury was accepted, but nullification had to be established.
The low opinion toward jury nullification among judges and prosecutors, and the tendency of judges to lie to juries in court about it, should make outsiders uncomfortable. There are other indications that the US court system has become corrupt, but this seems to be one of the clearest.