Cryptographix has replied to many (though not all) of Yaroslavvb's errorneous comments. I reply to his last one.

The jury has power to judge both the law and the facts. The purpose of drawing a jury from one's peers, i.e., from the general public, is to provide a final check to bad laws. (Prior checks would be the refusal of the executive OR judicial branches of government to prosecute OR hear cases based on bad law.)

Jury nullification means that the jury yields a verdict of "non-guilty" in spite of the facts in order to nullify the law.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
and: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/zenger/nullification.html
and: http://www.friesian.com/nullif.htm

After a jury nullification, i.e., after a declaration of "not-guilty", it is too late for a judge to eject the offending jurors. He might declare a mistrial, but to do so based on jury nullification is an abuse his power; just as his arrogation of final authority, when he states: "you must follow my instructions on the law, even if you thought law was different or should be different" is an abuse of his power.

(Given the poor reasoning skills of most jury members, it is understandable that judges want juries to just follow their directions, but I still prefer the common sense judgment of 12 common men to the absolute authority of judicial autocrats.)