That's just not true, though. I say that without taking a position on the merits of jury nullification.
Juries are generally charged with determining matters of fact; the judge matters of law. Even without jury nullification, a jury still determines whether the person performed a proscribed act, or did so with the requisite intent, etc.
When people talk about jury nullification, they generally mean the act of a jury actually believing that the person committed the act, but let them off because they don't think they should be punished for some other reason.
Juries are generally charged with determining matters of fact; the judge matters of law. Even without jury nullification, a jury still determines whether the person performed a proscribed act, or did so with the requisite intent, etc.
When people talk about jury nullification, they generally mean the act of a jury actually believing that the person committed the act, but let them off because they don't think they should be punished for some other reason.