“[T]he jury shall be the judges of the law and the facts in the trial of all criminal cases and shall give a general verdict of “guilty,” or “not guilty.””

From the earliest Hebrew jurisprudence, judge was a political title. There were executive judges, legislative judges and judicial judges. The term "common", in regards to judges, designated the chief executive. For example; a common judge in Israel or a common law judge. The common law judge was the sheriff. The head executive kept order (rules of civil, criminal, etc. procedure) The jury were the judicial judges that ruled on fact, law, innocence (innocent with prejudice was an option), guilt or not guilty. The de jure States united (the United States of America) was to be a nation at natural law (common law being the fundamental administration and extension thereof)

a P.S. In the occupying statist theocracy infesting this land, the black robed high priests that sit as judges do so first as executive enforcement officers of despotic god/kings. As a distant second, they determine actions as compared to the theocracy's canon(s). Juries are always subject to whim of the black robe. A jury's determining law and fact has little to do with anything.

No judge will ever tell a jury that they should judge the law as well as the facts in the case. In order to get a conviction, many prosecuting attorneys will cover up facts that do not support their case.

Jim, The Fully Informed Jury Association is making greater strides in getting judges to inform juries of the rights to judge both law and facts. Here are a few bills proposed in various states to do just that: http://www.ibiblio.org/fija/fijabill.htm . The nullification of law by jury has ALWAYS been the final check upon the government. One person out of twelve may in good conscience acquit a defendant -- this was and is the purpose of trial by jury.