Right, but there are still some sticky issues surrounding nullification.

"This so-called right of jury nullification is put forward in the name of liberty and democracy, but its explicit avowal risks the ultimate logic of anarchy."

See: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/juryseminar/US... http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1382192.html

Essentially, while jury nullification does exist and should be upheld it is critical that jurors are aware of it beforehand or may be otherwise informed.

This just doesn't come up in most high profile cases. The government will strike any juror who is a threat to use nullification.

Espionage is tried with juries? Source?

What source would you need for that? The 6th Amendment guarantees trial by jury.

Fair enough. I had assumed military trials may be treated differently as Manning's trial didn't have a jury. But it turns out he declined a jury with this reasoning:

> "The answer may be that a tough judge is still a better option than a military jury picked from a pool of serving soldiers that widely considers Manning to be a traitor. "

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/9901659/...

Yes, Manning is being tried under the UCMJ, but would have had a jury available to him there as well. However: Snowden is a civilian. He can't be tried in a military court (absent his joining the armed forces of some organization we're war with).