[andrewhillman]

"A jury can find you not guilty just because they don't like the law."

This is not really the case. It would be tough to find all jurors didn't LIKE the law. The people sitting on the jury were asked questions during the selection process to make sure they are neutral. The question is, do they understand the law and the issues at hand.

The prosecuting team bears the burden of proof (obviously). The prosecutors are required to prove their version of the actual events. This means that the proposition that is being presented before the judge / jury by the prosecution must be proven to the extent that there could be no reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. The defense needs to convince the criminal jury so they are unable to find beyond a reasonable doubt, that this guy is guilty.

The defense seems to be casting doubt for the jury to consider from the get-go. Well played.

[Retric]

The entire point of a jury of your peers is to prevent unreasonable laws being used to convict people.

[andrewhillman]

What? The law is the law. The entire point of a jury is to find the defendant guilty or not guilty of said issue at hand - the law!

[Retric]

Do you honestly think that 12 random people are going to understand the law better than say a 3 judge panel?

There are a few benefits as for example Juries are harder to bribe and sequestered juries are harder to tamper with. But, the core issue and why they were considered so important is there a check on unjust laws or even just laws unjustly applied.