Fun fact, jury nullification is a construct of criminal law since prosecutors can't appeal a non-conviction (they can sentences though).
Posted By: ironman1315
Date: Thursday 13 June 2019, at 10:05 am
In the civil context, if properly moved for, the jury could be cut out entirely. There are, for example, motions to dismiss, motions for summary judgement, and motions for a directed verdict. However, even supposing that the questions of fact reach the jury. If the jury gets it demonstrably wrong, the judge could overturn the jury's decision by way of a judgement notwithstanding a verdict.
Jury nullification has no binding precedential effect. Precedent comes by way of appellate courts (including the SCOTUS and state supreme courts). Some precedent can be had in a district court on novel issues of law, but those aren't binding outside that district court and are tenuous precedents until ruled on by higher courts.
Judges make law. Juries do not.
And, I must ask, what experience do you have with the law and legal history and the US legal system that makes you qualified to spout of demonstrably incorrect facts?
Copyright (C) 1998-2019 Utefans LC. All rights reserved. Partner of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties