I was called for jury duty yesterday--consternation ensued

[branford]

113. That's not really jury nullification.

Lying on voir dire to purportedly "help the little guy," "oppose draconian drug laws," etc. is nothing more than perjury. I respect that the OP honestly responded to the attorneys' and judge's questions, and then was appropriately eliminated from the jury pool.

In a true jury nullification scenario, open and honest jurors are selected, they properly hear the evidence, deliberate, and then vote to acquit in the interests of justice despite the weight of the evidence. Nevertheless, at all times the jury acts honestly and in good faith. Lying or willfully withholding pertinent information in order to to get on a jury to sway it's results is not noble, it's corrupt.

The vast majority of jurors are quite honest and determined to follow the law and their instructions, and generally will not hesitate to report true activists on the jury to the judge. If an activist juror is not quickly removed after deliberations begin in favor of an alternate juror, it may indeed force an acquittal, or more likely, a hung jury and retrial, if the evidence proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. However, such juror could soon end up a defendant in a perjury or criminal contempt prosecution for their activism. The juridical system and most citizens do not look kindly on dishonest jurors with agenda.