Ah, but that is the paradox. They will *never* ask you under oath about jury nullification, because that would both remind those who have heard of it about it, and would be a question to those unfamiliar with it, who would ask a question that the court does not want to answer.
What trips nullifiers up is if they *volunteer* that they know about nullification. In many courts if a prospective juror even *mentions* nullification, they will treat it as if the entire jury poor within earshot are tainted. They won’t punish the person who used the word, though they would like to, they can’t, but they will try to reset the process to get an “ignorant” pool of jurors.
What I proposed earlier, and why I suggested that there was risk involved, is because many courts are so opposed to the concept of nullification, that if someone set up a website, for example, that called for the use of nullification to overturn a bad law, they might actually get arrested.
Here’s one nullification advocate that got busted, while doing something clearly legal:
http://reason.com/blog/2011/02/25/is-advocacy-of-jury-nullificat
Well, I admit that I’m not an advocate of jury nullification. IMHO, that places way too much power in the hands an individual who’s agenda may or may not be reasonable. The potential for abuse far outweighs any possible benefit nullification may offer. Those who support nullification should rightfully be excluded from juries as far as I am concerned.