You Don't Use Jury Nullification When Warranted

One innocent man was sent back to prison for sexual assault of a child after the Supreme Court ruled he had no right to evidence that would later set him free.
Another was convicted of murder and came within weeks of being executed because prosecutors had hidden a blood test that later freed him.
Last week Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who argued that criminal defendants have no right to “potentially useful evidence” that “might” show they were innocent.
In the past, the court has shielded individual prosecutors from being sued, even if they deliberately framed an innocent person.1
A juror once asked the judge about Jury Nullification. The judge told him that it was not legal. How much trust would you put in a judge's opinion who lies to his jury to follow his own agenda instead of the law?
Juries originally were introduced into England to protect the individual from the tyranny of government. One of the first cases of Jury Nullification was in 1670. Jury Nullification even dates back to the Magna Carta. Could we not say that the above examples come close to tyranny by the government?