Double standards

The 6th Amendment guarantees the accused the right to a trial by a jury of their peers.

The flip side of that amendment is that the 6th Amendment creates an individual duty to decide the innocence or guilt of an individual. The juror's power to render such a decision, and the jury's power to return a verdict are constitutionally-derived powers.

Where there is a conflict between a constitutional power and a legislated law, the constitution always supersedes. The juror is constitutionally obligated to apply their own sense of rationality in determining whether to convict or acquit. Where strictly applying legislated law would be unjust and/or absurd, the jurors are the only people with a direct, constitutional power to prevent that injustice.

Jurors are often asked "Do you have any belief that might prevent you from making a decision solely on the basis of the law?". The constitution is law. A belief based on the constitution is a belief based on the law.

Just to piggyback off of this: trial-by-jury in the US is nearly nonexistent now. Less than 10% of arrests lead to a jury trial. Most go to a plea bargain.
The state no longer has to convince 12 of your peers that you're guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. They just need to convince you that you'll suffer more if you maintain innocence than if you accept guilt.
- I'm replying to every other comment it seems but I'm serious about this topic and I have personal experiences on both sides of the law. I've been summoned for jury duty twice, pled guilty or no contest to four crimes. I've also given victim testimony in court.
  One time I barely got out of jury duty, good for me because my workplace would have been run by idiots if I were gone and great for my bosses because the place would have been run by idiots if I were gone.
  The other time is the reason I responded. I sat in a room full of regular ass white people and one loudmouth that couldn't shut the fuck up. We sat in that room and listened to the idiot say untrue shit about many things. I really only remember him claiming "I don't give a damn" in Gone With the Wind was the first time anyone said a no no word on camera. What a jackass.
  So after sitting there, backs to the door, the pigs and lawyer pig come in. They say we got him, we just brought him by and had him look in the window and said these are the people who are going to convict you if you don't take the deal.
  Fucking disgusting.
- In this particular case, i’d take my chances with the jury. Especially since the feds asking for the death penalty is huge overreach and New York isn’t a state known for lots of jurors in favor of the death penalty. It’s actually banned for state crimes.
  EDIT: also, if he is somehow convicted of the worst crimes, his ability to appeal on the basis of cruel and unusual charging is very good. The terrorism charge alone is a massive overreach that I can’t think of ever being used when a civilian kills another civilian. And new york has fairly liberal judges. A plea deal is a huge mistake in this case. Unless the deal is a year in prison and 6 months probation. Which it won’t be. It’ll be we’ll drop the death penality charge and instead you get life.
the fcc has derived powers
the faa has derived powers
the sec has derived powers
- What constitutionally derived powers do those executive agencies have in a judicial action?
  
  Oh you want to move the goals posts from "derived powers" to "judicial action" ?
  neat trick.
  
  The injustice I described was the conviction of the accused. None of the agencies described have any constitutional powers relevant to such an injustice. There was no "moving of the goal posts": The agencies described are not relevant to the original scope.
  You could make a good argument that the presiding judge and appellate courts also have some constitutional powers, however, the "separation of powers" drastically limits their ability to review legislated law. They can overturn legislated law on the basis of constitutionality, but they do not have the constitutional power to overturn a legislated law merely on the basis of irrationality or absurdity, as that is a legislative function and not a judicial one.
  The juror is not restricted in this manner. The juror is free to determine that the legislators did not consider the specific circumstances of the accused when they prohibited the act for which the accused is charged. The juror is free to overrule the legislature on a case-by-case basis.
Best explanation of the power behind it I've ever seen. We need to add it to the poster I'm thinking of. Do you know anyone or an org in Manhattan we could get to post papers supporting Luigi for in self defense or in defense of others? I'd like to do a QR code to a site explaining jury nullification, why you can't talk about it, and now that it's your constitutional right and you can do it without lying to a judge.
- and how that it's your constitutional right
  Just one clarification: It is a "power" and not a "right". Jury service is a duty; an obligation to the accused that cannot be met by the government.

Change your name legally to that and you'll never be on a jury.

:sus: