1113, 1139 (1972) Judges today frequently suggest that the Jury can only hear and decide facts, and that they will decide the law. If you knew what your rights where when I made the claim of a violation of my rights, and my witness supported my claim, you would likely do the right thing, and have the offender punished. In the event that I was charged with violating some Law/policy 'you' may determine the Law itself in error and repugnant to the Constitution and render a not guilty verdict. This is known as 'jury nullification' which would set a president for the next Citizen that were charged with a violation of repugnant (bad) Law. But if you setting as a Jury member have no idea what your rights are, you most certainly cannot know what mine are and the result of said trial would have a negative affect on me, as well as, set a president (Case Law) to be used against other free Persons. One day it could be you on trail counting on your 'peers' to protect your rights. Would you prefer a member of the Posterity of People that knew and understood your rights to be a 'jurist' in your case, or a person that was totally ignorant of your rights and the Law?  "There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so