On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Jim Bell <[email protected]> wrote: > .... > However, those Quakers' positions may have been erroneous, based on a > misunderstanding of the relevant law. A person may claim to be 'not guilty' > based on the fact that he wasn't there, he didn't do it, etc. But, he may > also claim to be 'not guilty' because what he did didn't constitute a crime, > or he was justified based on extenuating circumstances, or he was trying to > prevent a bigger crime.
in the US court system, is there an equivalent of jury nullification applied to a judicial ruling? that is to say: is it possible to plead guilty, but a judge acting to nullify a perceived unjust law, could find you not guilty?
