Jury nullification is an essential mechanism for the repudiation of bad laws.

California doesn't have jury nullification. Only some states do.

Most juries don't even know they can nullify, and the ability is hardly ever used. Referendum is more well-known and used.

Whether or not the juries know their power is irrelevant to how essential the power is. I would argue that the very fact that the jury power has been so trivialized in the modern US is evidence of its essential nature.

Not having been exercised, the jury power is now a feeble thing in the US, but that does not strip it of its importance. It makes it all the more vital to tell every potential juror what their job is and to pressure them to get out there and do it.

D'A

A significant problem with Jury Nullification, beyond that the citizenry doesn't know about it, is that it is now barred in most states for the attorney involved to MENTION the power.

it would seem to be essential to a well run court system, if the people in question were fully informed of their powers and abilities.

(On the other hand, Jury Nullification does not strike down he law in question, it just states that the law is bad and does not apply to the specific case in review.)

That's kinda what I was thinking.

I won't defend that logic, since it's only in this claim to illustrate why stating that the jury power has been marginalized (and it has) does not refute the importance of said power. In other words, the terrible logic goes both ways, and the refutation is in the context of the argument.[1]

D'A

[1]: Not an argument Kara explicitly made, by the way, but one that I inferred from her vote combined with her comment.

Re: Kara, though, not all jurisdictions have both the realistic ability for jury nullification and referendums.

Whilst jury nullification is relatively rare in the UK, referendums are even more rare — with only nine nationwide referendums ever.