A crime requires a corpus delecti, which requires an injured party.
Im not sure you understand what corpus delecti means. In the US at least, it does not require an injured party. It merely requires evidence that a crime has been committed.
See - jury nullification
Jury nullification almost never works period. And it never works for white collar type crimes. If you takje it to a jury and lose after trying for nullification, youre likely to get maxed out on sentencing. And federal judges have wide guidelines for that.
No injury, loss, or harm? As a matter of law that means there is no crime.
American Jurisprudence 2D states much the same.
Wikipedia notes the same as as well here.
Personally, I like Marc Stevens page here... plenty of good citations there.
Of course, I'd believe the state supreme courts before I'd believe a lawyer or statute.
This is true, but it is also just scare mongering as they don't want people to know that we can nullify legislation, which is perfectly valid when said legislation conflicts with the law.Obviously, no one should go in and ask the jury to nullify unless they have no other choice (e.g. huge minimum sentencing rules).
I figured thats where you were going.
Yes, injury loss or harm is necessary. No, it does not have to be against a specific person or entity. It can be injury loss or harm to the common good. A great example is littering. The notion of injury to the common good dates all the way back to english common law (which is where we get the idea of corpus delecti)
Legislation is the law. And no, even if by some miracle you try jury nullification and win, you don't change the law, or "nullify" the legislation. In fact, such a ruling probably wouldnt even be admissible in a different trial. Its not like youve set a precedent.
Jury nullification is a slang term. Juries can't nullify or even interpret legislation. They are deciders of fact, not law. Its not a valid legal defense that "they" are trying to hide from you.
Legislation is the will of a group of men and women calling themselves a legislature. It is not law. This is the core difference between what is legal and what is lawful.
As for nullification, if a people has no right to judge not only the facts, but the validity of the purported law that is being applied, then the people are enslaved.
For it to be otherwise, the people would be at the absolute mercy of any legislation created, no matter how insane or criminal. Legislators could pass laws to do anything they want with no recourse for the people.