Is the following a form of &quot;jury nullification&quot; and if so can it be overturned legally?
<p>Regarding the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson_murder_case" rel="nofollow noreferrer">O.J. Simpson trial,</a> an (African American) commentator said something like, &quot;O.J. was guilty of murder, but it also appeared that he was being framed (by e.g. Mark Fuhrman), and therefore the jury voted to acquit, rather than support a wrongfully obtained conviction.&quot;</p>
<p>Suppose this had been an opinion expressed (after the fact) by one or more jurors, rather than a &quot;third&quot; party. Would this be a form of <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2584168" rel="nofollow noreferrer">&quot;jury nullification&quot;</a>? Would this be grounds for a mistrial on the theory that no &quot;reasonable&quot; jury would make such a finding?</p>

<p>So I'm fascinated with the OJ trial and I've read a ton about it. I'll try to answer your question both accepting your premise as true, and then also going into what actually happened.</p>
<p>First of all, <strong>jury nullification cannot be overturned in the US</strong>. The double jeopardy clause forbids it. This is such a powerful tool, in fact, that there are strict rules that prevent defense lawyers from mentioning or even hinting at jury nullification, in front of the jury, in almost all circumstances.</p>
<p>It doesn't mean D is safe from all legal liability. OJ, obviously, was found liable in the civil trial. Sometimes other jurisdictions can prosecute. For example, after the officers in the Rodney King beating were acquitted in state court, the federal government got them for violating federal hate crime statutes.</p>
<p>Second, looking at your premise. If jurors think D is guilty, but also being framed, that's not necessarily jury nullification. Remember, a criminal defendant must be proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That means that 'probably guilty' means 'not guilty.'</p>
<p>That said, there may be times when a jury is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of a defendant's guilt, but is so disgusted by the police tactics used in the case that they acquit. This would be jury nullification.</p>
<p>What actually happened in the OJ case: Mark Fuhrman perjured himself on the stand. He lied and said he'd never said the N word, and the defense produced tapes of him saying it a ton. The defense recalled him to the stand. Because perjury is a serious crime, this time he came in with his own defense lawyer, and did nothing but take the fifth on the stand. In a genius move, OJ's defense team asked him whether he planted any evidence in the OJ case. He didn't deny it, instead he took the fifth (again, as he was doing to every question). This was enough to sow reasonable doubt about OJ's guilt <em>based on the evidence in that trial</em> (there's obviously no actual doubt, in real life, that he's guilty). So, what actually happened wasn't jury nullification.</p>

<p>While @Colin Losey has a lengthy and basically correct answer, one get reach a conclusion much more quickly.</p>
<p>Under U.S. law, in a criminal case, a jury verdict of acquittal cannot be appealed or overruled for any reason other than improper outside interference with the jurors (e.g. bribery or extortion directed at jurors to get them to acquit).</p>
<p>This is true even if the jury verdict of acquittal was based upon reasoning directly contrary to the law as they were instructed, and even if the jury verdict of acquittal was entered despite the jurors belief that the defendant was factually and legally guilty.</p>

united-states california double-jeopardy jury-nullification