Fully-Informed Juries & Jury Nullification

A funny thing happened on the way to a Salt Lake City courthouse recently. As prospective jurors entered the courtroom to be selected to hear a case of an environmental activist, activists handed them fliers published by the Fully Informed Jury Association. They said that jurors had the right to come to a decision based on the evidence and their conscience. But according to an article published on Truthdig.com, the presiding judge in the case was so outraged by the flier that he brought the jurors into his chamber one at a time and, "said that regardless of what the pamphlet said it was not their job to decide if this is right or wrong, but to listen to what he said was the law and follow that even if they thought it was morally unjust." In other words, "they were not allowed to use [their] conscience." What exactly is the contemporary function of a jury? What constitutes a fully informed jury? Is jury nullification a viable option for sitting jurors? What are the arguments for and against jury nullification? Are those who endorse its practice partisan, or does a belief that jurors can exercise their conscience cross party lines? To answer these questions, my guest is Mike Benoit of the Fully Informed Jury Association.