Not necessarily. Jury instructions themselves are often "politics over justice". I personally would not bother with any jury instructions. I'd look at the charges and then the evidence. To hell with the judge's interpretation of what my job as a juror is and whether I'm supposed to follow some rules made up that have no force of effect of law.
Jurors often don't know that they are not bound by the instructions. They are free to make whatever decision they can live with for whatever reason they choose to do so.
All jury instructions are based on the law. If they are not, they get overturned. The trial courts and the appeals courts have a big book of "standard jury charges" but they are all based on the law. Lawyers may (and usually do) request additional charges particularly applicable to the case, which they write themselves -- but again they have to cite the law.
Back when I was a judicial clerk, we spent a lot of time in the library making sure that the jury instructions tallied with the law. Occasionally the lawyers would try to sneak one by you, but they generally got caught - if not by us, by the other side.
Think of the instructions as a capsule summary of the applicable law, provided for the jury's convenience. The one time I sat on a jury (don't ask me why they took me!) the instructions were of GREAT help. Especially since it was an area of law I don't practice in.
With that said, where the jury holds absolute sway is on the FACTS. And applying the charged law to the facts. Plenty of wiggle room there for a jury of decent intelligence without overthrowing the law.
Jurors often don't know that they are not bound by the instructions.
Indeed! ... were it that more conservatives knew this ... :-)
See Post #66 ...