The concern involves instances when a judge reverses a jury’s criminal conviction after naming themselves the 13th juror and then filing a motion for a new trial. The judge isn’t required to provide much explanation other than they believe the jury got it wrong based on errors made during the trial. [More]
Just don’t try the good kind.
“That’s not what the founders of our constitution intended,” Howard said. “This is a primary right, one of the building blocks in our democratic society and I just don’t think that they ever intended for a judge to simply undo the work of a jury.”
The jury’s primary job is not to judge facts… it is to serve as a check on the power of the state. Otherwise, we could just use judges. Nullifications are allowed only in the direction of acquittal. One is forced to presume that if a judge (same as a juror) takes this radical step, there is a good and moral reason, because we have no other practical alternative (other than to prove subornation).