I've never heard it used for homicide, which doesn't mean anything. But those trials tend to be scrutinized very closely, and they're very expensive, esp if the defendant isn't wealthy.

The biggest jury nullification situation that I know of produced the Twenty-first Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the repeal of prohibition.

But Americans weren't so ignorant then. The people didn't like Prohibition, didn't think it was a good law, and frequently found the moonshiners not guilty. Toward the end, the courts just about couldn't get a conviction at all.

But there are things today where the same thing could happen if people weren't schooled to be so ignorant about the Constitution and law in general, and schooled to be so obedient (for some things, anyway ).

The War on Drugs is generally considered to be an expensive farce, but it's making a lot of money for a lot of people, not just the drug producers.

Prostitution doesn't really have unwilling victims unless they're under-age (which is a totally separate issue).

One of the reasons why the current search/seizure methods now in use never go to court is because the Constitution is very clear that it is strictly illegal. Also most of the pseudo-laws like the red-light camera fines will probably never go to court.

Abortion is a tricky one, too, since in reality, the matter should be strictly decided between a woman and her doctor, not involving political and religious zealots.

There are lots of things that could fall into the possibility of nullification. And the ones that do are the ones where, with current state/county economic conditions, are the ones that should be turned loose. But, of course, the ones that they're threatening to turn loose are the clearly criminal ones.

Sue