Kenosha Shooter Kyle Rittenhouse

[popeyespappy]

And any jury verdict based on whether a particular law is ‘fair’ is likely to be set aside by the presiding judge or cause a mistrial.

Mistrial maybe, but a US Judge can not set aside an acquittal. They can only enter a judgment notwithstanding the verdict if the jury votes to convict. A judge in a jury trial can only convict without the consent of the jury if the defendant waives their rights to a jury trial.

Jury verdicts are meant to be based on the facts in evidence and whether those facts merit action under established law.

I guess this means you are OK with condemning a young black man to 25 to life in prison because he got caught 3 times with 25 grams of pot and ran afoul of the three-strikes law? I'm not, and if I am sitting on the jury in such a case I won't vote to convict in such a case regardless of whether or not the facts merit action under established law. I don't have to either. John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, said in Georgia v Brailsford that jurors possess a right to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. This has been confirmed by the courts as late as 1972 in US v. Dougherty when the District of Columbia Court of Appeals explained that a jury has an unreviewable and irreversible power to acquit and disregard of the instruction on the law given by the trial judge. Jury nullification is a thing. While a Judge can remove a juror or declare a mistrial in the event of a hung jury, they cannot declare someone guilty without either the unanimous consent of the jury or the defendant.