danke shon....
When the Constitution was written it was accepted that the law reverted back to the community when a jury was impaneled. That, after all, is what a grand jury is all about.
The same went for trial juries. The accepted form was the the jury would judge both the law and the facts under the guidance, but not the mandate, of the judge. I have researched an instance where a grand jury was dismissed and, believing a judge to be corrupt kept right on meeting. The governor of the state upon reading this "dismissed" jury's recommendation then attempted to talk the judge into resigning. After awhile the judge was removed by force. The governor--a true upper-crust Federalist--then allowed what was essentially a "sham" prosecution of those removing the judge and when it was all over pardoned the leaders of the action.
A lot has been written on how jury rights were eroded near the beginning of the 19th century. You might want to check Amar's book: "The Biography of the Constitution" and look up his citations on this.
McVey