Quote Originally Posted by TyPR124
WHY HASN'T IT OCCURED TO STATES TO USE THIS?
Because the state risks losing federal funds as a result of flaunting federal law. The feds are kinda funny that way.

Quote Originally Posted by TyPR124
The second thing, though, IS a law. Jury nullification, which says a jury (as in trial by jury, ordinary people) has the right to declare that a law is unconstitutional or say someone is not guilty because they don't agree with the law.
Ever try to get 12 people to agree 100% on anything?
Not all citizens agree with cannabis decriminalization/legalization. It would have to be a unanimous verdict but could technically set legal precedence, if all subsequent prosecutorial and political challenges were unsucessful.

Quote Originally Posted by TyPR124
What's sad is that judges PURPOSELY 'forget' to tell jurors about these rights...
It's up to the procecutor to inform the jury of charges, evidence and circumstances, beyond a reasonable doubt. It's up to the defense attorney to point-out the lack of evidence or lack of victim, along with pointing-out the social injustices. Would have to be a concerted effort to gain the confidence/support of the entire jury.

The problem with this approach is...the defense attorneys are just trying to get one person to see the injustice of the "bad laws" to avoid prosecution. To set legal precedence, he'd (or she'd) have to convince all 12 (and likely the alternates) jurors of the archaic policy.

The judge is the referee. If rights or laws are infringed upon, he has the right to step-in, and assert his authority. Take the overtly invasive techniques that Judge Larry Seidlin used, (Anna Nichole baby case) versus the camera-induced stupidity of Judge Lance Ito (O.J. murder case) for example. Had Judge Ito asserted his authority during the OJ trial, he would have asked the defense what happens to leather when moisture (blood) is added, then the leather is dried. (it shrinks, so of course the friggin glove wouldn't fit) The case would have taken a left-turn to the electric chair. But then again...the prosecutors were morons to begin with, so this insight is rather subjective.

And although Judge Seidlin was overly emotional, he demanded asnwers to questions that some thought were tangental to the case, but he left no stone unturned prior to making his heartbreaking ruling.

The point is, you'd have to face the right charges, with the right defense team, facing the right judge and jury...before any of this would be feasable. Not nearly as easy as some would lead you to believe.