As recently as 1972, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said that the jury has an " unreviewable and irreversible power... to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge.... (US vs Dougherty, 473 F 2d 1113, 1139 (1972))

Or as this same truth was stated in a earlier decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Maryland:

"We recognize, as appellants urge, the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge, and contrary to the evidence. This is a power that must exist as long as we adhere to the general verdict in criminal cases, for the courts cannot search the minds of the jurors to find the basis upon which they judge. If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused, is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic of passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision." (US vs Moylan, 417 F 2d 1002, 1006 (1969)).

YOU, as a juror armed with the knowledge of the purpose of a jury trial, and the knowledge of what your Rights, powers, and duties really are, can with your single vote of not guilty nullify or invalidate any law involved in that case. Because a jury's guilty decision must be unanimous, it takes only one vote to effectively nullify a bad "act of the legislature." Your one vote can "hang" a jury; and although it won't be an acquittal, at least the defendant will not be convicted of violating an unjust or unconstitutional law.

You must know your rights! Because, once selected for jury duty, nobody will inform you of your power to judge both law and fact. In fact, the judge's instructions to the jury may be to the contrary. Another quote from US vs Dougherty (cited earlier):

"The fact that there is widespread existence of the jury's prerogative, and approval of its existence as a necessary counter to case-hardened judges and arbitrary prosecutors, does not establish as an imperative that the jury must be informed by the judge of that power".

Look at that quote again. the court ruled jurors have the right to decide the law, but they don't have to be told about it. It may sound hypocritical, but the Dougherty decision conforms to an 1895 Supreme Court decision that held the same thing. In Sparf vs US (156 US 51), the court ruled that although juries have the right to ignore a judge's instructions on the law, they don't have to be aware of the right to do so.

Is this Supreme Court ruling as unfair as it appears on the surface? It may be, but the logic behind such a decision is plain enough.

In the case of Sparf vs. US (156 US 51) the court ruled that though juries have the right to ignore a judges instructions on the law, they don't have to be made aware that they have that right. It is therefore everyone's responsibility to KNOW their rights! Unfortunately very few people know, or understand the right they have to nullify oppressive and/or unconstitutional laws enacted by their legislature.

In our Constitutional Republic (note I didn't say democracy) the people have granted certain limited powers to government, preserving and retaining their God-given inalienable rights. So, if it is indeed the juror's right to decide the law, then the citizens should know what their rights are. They need not be told by the courts. After all, the Constitution makes us the masters of the public servants. Should a servant have to tell a master what his rights are? Of course not, it's our responsibility to know what our rights are!

The idea that juries are to judge only the "facts" is absurd and contrary to historical fact and law. Are juries present only as mere pawns to rubber stamp tyrannical acts of the government? We The People wrote the supreme law of the land, the Constitution, to "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." Who better can unbiasly decide the fairness of the laws, or whether the laws conform to the Constitution?

The very first jury trial before the U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay instructed the jury this way:

"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". State of Georgia vs. Brailsford (3 Dall 1)

This jury right was first put to the test as early as 1734, and has been upheld by a Federal Appeals Court as recently as 1972, where it was defined as an:

"... unreviewable and unreversible power... to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge..." (US vs Dougherty, 473 F 2d 1113, 1139 (1972)

Another case in 1969 states the following:

" We recognize, as appellants urge the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if it's verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge, and contrary to the evidence. This is a power that must exist as long as we adhere to the general verdict in criminal cases, for the courts cannot search the minds of the jurors to find the basis upon which they judge.

If the jury feels that the laws under which the defendant is accused are unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified their logic of passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision" (US vs Moylan, 4177 F2d 1002, 1006 (1969)

The government will not be able to deprive this person of their LIBERTY without YOUR consent! If you feel the statute is unfair, unconstitutional or infringes on the defendants God-given rights, it is not only your right to vote for acquittal, but your DUTY.

Here are the instructions typically given by a judge:

"It becomes my duty as judge to instruct you concerning the law applicable to this case, and it is your duty as jurors to follow the law as I shall state it to you. You are to be governed solely by the evidence introduced in this trial, and the law as stated to you by me."

Remember, it is your RIGHT, as affirmed by the Supreme Court and many lesser federal courts, to bring in a verdict according to conscience, and to judge whether the law itself is unjust, or unfairly applied. So the next time you are summoned for jury duty, remember, if you manage to talk your way out of serving, it could be some extremist bigot that serves in your place. Will you be able to sleep at night knowing that you let a person who's only "crime" was growing a marijuana plant go to jail?