[Gordongekko909]

Yep. Juries don't get to decide questions of law. They get to decide questions of fact. And they may determine that the accused did not commit the crime with which he is charged.

[DuncanWaring]

Juries don't get to decide questions of law.

So if you were a juror for someone accused of violating the Fugitive Slave Law, if they were proven guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt", you'd vote "Guilty".

[SUSSA]

Yep. Juries don't get to decide questions of law. They get to decide questions of fact. And they may determine that the accused did not commit the crime with which he is charged.

######

That’s what statist judges want people to think. However, the truth is the jury has the power and the duty to judge of both the law as well as the fact in controversy.

[Richard-SIA]

These people would disagree.

http://www.fija.org/

And so do I.

[TXnMA]

You definitely need to check out http://www.fija.org

[RipSawyer]

Actually, any jury with the guts to do so has the power under the constitution to decide that a law is no good, judges don't want you to know this but it is true. This can be done simply by finding a defendant not guilty regardless of the evidence. There is no legal way that a judge can force a jury to find someone guilty.

[zeugma]

"It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision." (emphasis added) "...you have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy".  -Chief Justice John Jay -  State of Georgia vs. Brailsford