Jury nullification has become controversial as several prominent African American scholars encouraged Blacks to acquit other Blacks because of perceived mistreatment of African Americans by the courts and, more generally, by the criminal justice system (MacNamara & Burns, 2009). An example of a situation involving race-based jury nullification is the case against Lemrick Nelson Jr. Nelson, a black teenager, stabbed and killed a Jewish scholar, named Yankel Rosenbaum, in 1991. During his trial, he was acquitted of all charges. After the trial concluded, Nelson’s attorney invited the jury to dinner to celebrate the verdict. This case is a clear example of race-based jury nullification because the jury was composed mostly of Blacks. Throughout history, there have been many studies that concentrate on how Blacks view the criminal justice system, and most of them agree that they mistrust it. Furthermore, there is also the phenomenon of “in-group bias”, which explains how jurors are more inclined into favoring individuals of their own race. Racial sympathy plays some role in the deliberations of some jurors, but a recent survey of the empirical literature in the Nebraska Law Review also points to a more nuanced conclusion: in many cases, minority jurors tend to favor defendants, regardless of race because they are suspicious of policemen of all races (Rosen, 1992). Even if the jury thought they had saved Nelson from unjust punishment, their thoughtless celebration shows callousness toward the aggrieved Jewish community and the family of Yankel Rosenbaum; a man who died the victim of racism and rage. Another example of a situation involving race-based jury nullification is the case against Mayor Marion Barry, who was acquitted of different drug charges and perjury. Mr. Barry was caught on videotape smoking crack, and this evidence was presented in trial, but Mr.