Scott Horton uses America's own Founding Fathers to defend Julian P. Heicklen, who encouraged jurors "to ignore the law if they disagree with it, and to render verdicts based on conscience," a concept known as jury nullification:

Federal prosecutors in New York have reached the alarming decision that informing individuals on the street in front of the courthouse (some of whom may be en route to serve on a jury pool) about the doctrine of jury nullification is a criminal act. Their view would find no sympathy among the authors of America’s constitutional system.

Jury nullification has a long and noble history in America. ... America’s Founding Fathers made their case to juries arguing for nullification. John Adams, when defending John Hancock in 1771, insisted that the juror has not merely the “right” but actually the “duty to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court” and its understanding of the law. Conscience should serve as a safety valve, he argued, against unjust laws, or against just laws, unjustly applied.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.