This sort of thing is one of the reasons that juries should be told the sentences for crimes of which defendants are accused, and should be allowed to specify maximum sentences with their verdicts; per CGA'68, there should be an explicit statement that any crime for which a jury mandates that a sentence be less than 365 days shall be either considered to be of a class for which no longer sentence was possible or else dropped altogether.
I've seen it argued that there's no legitimate reason for jurors to consider sentencing in determining guilt or innocence. Nice theory, except that the required standards of proof and mens rea should vary with the proposed sentence.
For example, suppose someone runs out of gas on a busy road and coasts to a stop in a wide spot of the road opposite a fire station, and if such wide spot is the only place within coasting distance to get out of traffic; the person then proceeds on foot to a gas station a mile away. Before the person returns to move his car, there is a fire call and the fire crew is delayed by about 90 seconds maneuvering one of their fire trucks out of the station. The motorist is charged with "Obstructing a fire crew".
Suppose you were on a jury and the facts were precisely as described. The law reads "Any person who commits any deliberate act whose effect is to materially delay the effective response of a fire crew to a fire shall be guilty of 'Obstructing a fire crew'". If the penalty for the crime was a $250 fine, would you acquit or convict? What if the penalty was a ten-year prison term? Would that affect your decision? Should it?
I would suggest that the nature of the sentence should affect the decision to acquit or convict, because it should affect the level of intent necessary to find guilt. If the law was written to deal with people who block fire trucks for the purpose of preventing timely response to fires (as would be implied if the sentence was ten years) the person in the scenario above would not qualify. If the law was written to deal with people who fail to afford fire crews and trucks adequate courtesy, the person above would qualify.
Unfortunately, in its desire to create criminals, the government frequently assigns sentences as though laws are intended to go after major deliberate crimes, but then tries to convince juries that they're intended to deal with minor offenses.
An independent jury is essential to justice. The government (and supporters of big and bigger government) would love all of us to believe that the role of the jury is to judge the facts and the role of the court is is to judge the law. If this were true, we could have a perfectly legal law against breathing and the only decision for a jury would be to judge if the defendant had indeed been breathing. Never mind if breathing itself should be a crime.
Independent juries really have no interest in seeing the guilty go free any more than to see that the innocent are convicted. They must be allowed enough latitude during the trial to seek justice and not just be the directed instrument of the State.
Indeed, I think that education of the public about their rights, and obligations when serving in juries is the next major civil rights battle of the Conservative Century.