<P> This history, however, is marked by a number of notable exceptions . In 1554, a jury acquitted Sir Nicholas Throckmorton, but was severely punished by the court . Almost a century later in 1649, in the first known attempt to argue for jury nullification, a jury likewise acquitted John Lilburne for his part in inciting a rebellion against the Cromwell regime . The theoretician and politician Eduard Bernstein wrote of Lilburne's trial: </P> <P> His contention that the constitution of the Court was contrary to the fundamental laws of the country was unheeded, and his claim that the jury was legally entitled to judge not only as to matters of fact but also as to the application of the law itself, as the Judges represented only' Norman intruders', whom the jury might here ignore in reaching a verdict, was described by an enraged judge as' damnable, blasphemous heresy' . This view was not shared by the jury, which, after three days' hearing, acquitted Lilburne--who had defended himself as skilfully as any lawyer could have done--to the great horror of the Judges and the chagrin of the majority of the Council of State . The Judges were so astonished at the verdict of the jury that they had to repeat their question before they would believe their ears, but the public which crowded the judgment hall, on the announcement of the verdict, broke out into cheers so loud and long as, according to the unanimous testimony of contemporary reporters, had never before been heard in the Guildhall . The cheering and waving of caps continued for over half an hour, while the Judges sat, turning white and red in turns, and spread thence to the masses in London and the suburbs . At night bonfires were lighted, and even during the following days the event was the occasion of joyful demonstrations . </P> <P> In 1653, Lilburne was on trial again and asked the jury to acquit him if it found the death penalty "unconscionably severe" in proportion to the crime he had committed . The jury found Lilburne "Not guilty of any crime worthy of death". </P> <P> In 1670, a grand jury refused to convict William Penn of unlawful assembly in Bushel's Case . The judge attempted to find the jury in contempt of court; this was ruled inappropriate by the Court of Common Pleas . </P>

Can a judge overturn a jury verdict in canada