No, the Jury has the right to try the law itself — to wit, it could be a blatant misapplication of the law such that the intent was one thing but the absolute-letter another; or a law which is contrary to the Constitution (federal or state); or a law which is morally repugnant (see fugitive slave laws).
To deny that the jury has the authority to consider the full law and render as they will is to deny the jury its rightful place as being the check against government overreach/retaliation/tyranny. Moreover, as evidenced in this case, there are many laws (and regulations) which have been violated both during this trial and in order to bring the case to trial itself. (Consider the withholding of evidence from the defense, the Stand Your Ground law as-written, and the firing of the police-chief and IT guy for resisting injustice.) If the government [prosecution] cannot present a good compelling case while playing fair
, then how pure are the intentions of that prosecution? Moreover, if the law is not directly available to them and must be filtered through the system
then how trustworthy is that information if they have broken laws and regulations during the course of the case anyway?
Actually shalom aleichem is correct. What you are talking about is jury nulification. A jury can decide they don’t like a law and then determine that the facts weren’t proven. Not appealable. An absolute right. And with double jeopardy, that’s it - case dismissed.
Now on the other side, an appeals court can find that no “reasonable” jury could have made factual determinations that led to a conviction based on the presented evidence. If there is a conviction here, I predict that is what will happen because the prosecution presented NO evidence that this wasn’t self defense, just emotion and supposition.