Cases like this are why we have juries. They don’t guarantee a common sense result, but are a better bet than most prosecutors and black robe bozos.
Unfortunately, based on my experience, prospective jurors must swear to follow the law and the instructions of the judge no matter what. This will probably intimidate most jurors into doing exactly that. (But if that's the case, why the hell do we need juries?) There is a Catch 22 in that neither judge nor defense attorney can advise the jury of the nullification concept but ....
From Wikipedia, "In recent rulings, the courts have continued to prohibit informing juries about jury nullification. In a 1969, Fourth Circuit decision, U.S. v. Moylan, 417 F.2d 1002 (4th Cir.1969), the Court affirmed the concept of jury nullification, but upheld the power of a court to refuse to permit an instruction to the jury to this effect.[42] In 1972, in United States v. Dougherty, 473 F.2d 1113, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a ruling similar to Moylan that affirmed the de facto power of a jury to nullify the law but upheld the denial of the defense's chance to instruct the jury about the power to nullify.[43]".