The story of Thomas Eddlem, juror in the case of accused mafioso drug dealer, Robert Luisi, is a cautionary tale.  From the WSJ Law Blog :

Thomas Eddlem was part of a jury that began deliberations in Boston federal court in the retrial of Robert Luisi, a reputed mafia lieutenant, for cocaine trafficking. During deliberations, Eddlem reportedly sent a note to the judge, William Young, asking, where “is the constitutional grant of authority to ban mere possession of cocaine today?”

Two hours later, according to a recent memorandum written by Judge Young, the jury sent him two more questions: First, if a juror denies the constitutionality of the prosecution, “preempting consideration of the facts,” can he participate? Second, can the jury continue to deliberate? Judge Young brought the jury in, assured them that the laws at issue were constitutional and sent them home for the day, he wrote.

But the “problem” persisted, and after Judge Young found out that Eddlem was the problem, he was tossed off the jury.

Eddlem, whom the Globe describes as a 42-year-old technology coordinator at a Catholic high school and former John Birch Society official, prompted Judge Young to write a 43-page memo, saying this was the first time he “encountered a juror who has attempted to arrogate to himself the power that our Constitution places in the elected branches of government.” Judge Young ultimately replaced Eddlem with an alternate juror. Shortly afterward, the reconstituted jury convicted Luisi of three cocaine-related charges.

Why?  Eddlem made some peculiar points, upsetting his fellow jurors perhaps, but where is the wrong in that?  Strange people (not to say that Eddlam is strange) end up on juries all the time.  Indeed, ordinary people are often “unusual” in their thoughts, and they are supposed to be on juries.  If they were, why would we need more than one person on a jury?

The difference with Eddlem, of course, was that he was antagonistic to the laws of the United States as currently interpreted.  He doubted the government’s authority.  He questioned its power.  Maybe his theory was just a wee bit fringe.  Okay, a lot fringe, but it was his and he was selected to be a juror and all jurors come to the courthouse with baggage.  Has anyone ever heard of a juror getting tossed because he espoused in the jury room that anyone arrested likely deserved it, no matter what the evidence?

Eddlem wanted to nullify.  Judge Young was determined not to let that happen.  The viability of jury nullification has been discussed here and elsewhere before, so we won’t get into that morass again, but the point remains that Eddlem was tossed because nullification was his intention.  We can’t have that.  While Judge Young might not have been able to change things after the verdict was returned, he could certainly do something about the problem when he received advance warning. 

It’s different, apparently, when the juror’s issues are with the government rather than the defense. 

Update:  Randy Barnett at Volokh, just wee bit late to the party, agrees.  He just didn’t believe it could happen until he heard it from Cato.  I guess I’m just not a credible source.  Sigh.