[Richard Kimball]

While a juror might decide on his own that he would vote not guilty because he did not agree with the law, that does not mean the jury has the legal right to challenge the validity of the law. For an example, see the OJ verdict. One alternate juror, when interviewed and asked if they acquitted based on the fact that OJ was black and the victims were white, said, "So what if we did?" A juror in the Michael Jackson trial stated that one of the reasons she voted to acquit was because she didn't like the mother's attitude when she was on the stand. So, jurors frequently decide based on issues other than what they are supposed to, that doesn't make it legal, according to the law.

[SUSSA]

While a juror might decide on his own that he would vote not guilty because he did not agree with the law, that does not mean the jury has the legal right to challenge the validity of the law.

####

The Supreme Court has ruled otherwise.

In fact, the instructions to the jury in the first jury trial before the Supreme Court of the United States illustrate the true power of the jury. Chief Justice John Jay said: "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." "...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".