It is proper for a trial court to inform prospective jurors during voir dire that they have no legal authority to engage in jury ification, and to seek assurances that they will not do so if chosen to serve as jurors. Courts have authority to prevent jury ification when it is occurring by discharging a juror who refuses to follow the law. Since a court can discharge a juror who engages in ification, it is logical that a court should be able to prevent ification from happening by informing jurors that they have no authority to disregard the law, and by getting assurances they will not do so if chosen to serve. Moreover, defendant was not prejudiced by the anti-ification instruction. Ironically, the verdict showed the jury in fact “fied the anti-ification directive” by acquitting defendant of attempted robbery, as defense counsel urged, even though defendant’s acts constituted attempted robbery as a matter of law.