The one thing nobody has noticed is this. Why haven't the defense attorneys made this argument during closing arguments. The Jury system came from history, and was codified under English Law during the Magna Carta. This was to take a power away from the King. The King, or Government could accuse you of a crime, try you for that crime. But the King could not convict you of that crime. That power was reserved for the people, the peers we all know from the Bill of Rights. However, most people don't realize that the purpose of the Jury was never intended to simply decide had the person done the action accused, but was the law JUST, or Justly applied.
St. Augustine taught civilization that an unjust law, was no law. The second purpose of a Jury was supposed to be the question of Just Law. Was the law just, and was it justly applied. There are tens of thousands of examples of unjustly applied laws. From girlfriends who had no knowledge of the actions of drug dealers and who are serving decades because someone has to pay for it, to people who didn't know the action was a crime. The second most asinine phrase is Ignorance is no excuse. If you don't know what the rules are, it is impossible to follow them.
So the jury has the ability to return Not Guilty verdicts because the law is unjust, or unjustly applied. Yet a vast majority of the people who serve on Juries don't know this right. The example I gave the Judge when I was questioned about an example was pre Civil War. It was a Federal Crime to assist an escaped slave. To the best of my knowledge nobody was ever charged with that crime. However, I'd like to think that if I had been on a jury, I'd have found the individual not guilty of assisting someone who wanted freedom.
The Jury could find these people who are guilty of nothing more than growing Medical Marijuana not guilty because the law is unjustly applied. The defense attorney could argue for the jury to do just that. After a while it would become a cause celeb, in which Juries would joyously find the defendant not guilty because the law was unjust, or unjustly applied.
We the people have a grave responsibility as Jurors, not just to decide if the person did it, but is the Government right in prosecuting them?