From: coderman <coderman@gmail.com>
   To: Jim Bell <jamesdbell8@yahoo.com>
   On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Jim Bell <[1]jamesdbell8@yahoo.com>
   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?
   Yes, the concept of 'jury nullification' exists in American law.
   See [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fully_Informed_Jury_Association  .
      Unfortunately, courts generally take the position that while jurors
   have the right to acquit regardless of the evidence, judges are not
   obliged to inform the jurors of that right.  Worse, judges usually take
   the position that they can order defense attorneys to not inform jurors
   of those jurors' rights on this subject.  See
   [3]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparf_v._United_States
   A judge can also declare a defendant 'not guilty', despite a guilty
   verdict by a jury:  This is called "Judgment notwithstanding the
   verdict", abbreviated (from Latin, I believe) "j.n.o.v.".
   [4]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JNOV
          Jim Bell

References

   1. mailto:jamesdbell8@yahoo.com
   2. http:///
   3. http:///
   4. http:///