THE ANALYSIS OPENS WITH A CONSIDERATION OF THE POSSIBLE ADVERSE EFFECTS OF THE FARETTA DECISION ON THE QUALITY OF THE DEFENDANT'S TRIAL PREPARATION AND PRESENTATION AND ON THE EFFICIENT USE OF COURTROOM TIME. MEASURES THAT MAY BE USED BY THE TRIAL COURT TO AMELIORATE THESE EFFECTS ARE SUGGESTED. THE ANALYSIS THEN TURNS TO THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PRO SE RIGHT AND THE JURY IN A CRIMINAL CASE TO IGNORE THE TRIAL JUDGE'S INSTRUCTIONS ON THE LAW. IT IS ARGUED THAT IN THE HIGHLY CHARGED ATMOSPHERE OF A POLITICAL TRIAL, THE PRO SE LITIGANT HAS A UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY TO SEEK JURY NULLIFICATION, I.E., TO ASK THE JURY NOT TO APPLY THE LAW AS INSTRUCTED BY THE JUDGE. SUCH AN OPPORTUNITY IS IN REALITY UNAVAILABLE TO LITIGANTS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. IT IS CONCLUDED THAT JURY NULLIFICATION IS NOT OUT OF HARMONY WITH THE BASIC TENETS OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM AND THAT IT SHOULD NOT BE SEIZED UPON AS A REASON