I’m not the person you replied to but I believe the “question” of jury nullification they were alluding to was whether or not it can be argued by the defendant. I’m not a criminal lawyer but from what I recall the answer (for lawyers representing defendants, at least) is no.

Again, not a criminal lawyer, but I doubt a judge would ever instruct a jury with respect to nullification. It’s not relevant. The role of the jury is fact finder. The function of the jury is not to determine right from wrong or good law from bad law.

A judge did and it went to the SCOTUS:

https://reason.com/2017/06/20/although-juries-can-acquit-the...

Quoth the judge:

> You cannot substitute your sense of justice, whatever that means, for your duty to follow the law, whether you agree with it or not. It is not for you to determine whether the law is just or whether the law is unjust. That cannot be your task. There is no such thing as valid jury nullification. You would violate your oath and the law if you willfully brought a verdict contrary to the law given to you in this case.

On the juries I’ve served the instructions were extremely limiting and there was an implicit “no jury nullification here”, but they were not as direct as the judge in this case.

One of the things SCOTUS said in regards to this particular case: "While jurors undoubtedly should be told to follow the law, the statement that there is no valid jury nullification misstates the role of nullification because an acquittal is valid, even if it resulted from nullification."

There is also no implied punishment so the judge in case overstepped.

I agree that the judge overstepped. The SCOTUS didn’t. They can say whatever they want in their decision but if a judge can say that jury nullification is invalid and the conviction is still upheld it means a judge can say that jury nullification is invalid.

>"conviction is still upheld"

There was no nullification in that particular case. If there was judge can say whatever s/he wants but there would be no conviction.