OT: rough, It's not a theory, it's a right of the jury to ignore the law.
[Sladek] was, trying to talk about Jury Nullification and even cited opinions from noted jurists with respect to this theory.
The way I described it is how it's supposed to work.
I don't disagree with the part of your post that deals with interpretation of the law. However, in your zeal to find an out, you don't seem to appreciate how the system works or how it is supposed to work.
It is exceptional that the jury ignores the judge's instructions on the law, because judges know the law better than lay people.
As I posted, it is the job of the jury to determine IF a law applies to the defendant. But it is a determination of FACT. Did the defendant do x,y,z which amounts to a violation of law, as instructed by the judge.
Again, I refer to Hamilton: "It is admitted to be the duty of the court to direct the jury as to the law, and it is advisable for the jury in most cases, to receive the law from the court; and in all cases, they ought to pay respectful attention to the opinion of the court. But, it is also their duty to exercise their judgments upon the law, as well as the fact; and if they have a clear conviction that the law is different from what is stated to be by the court, the jury are bound, in such cases, by the superior obligations of conscience, to follow their own convictions. |
