::Dear user at IP 38.108.247.152: I'm not sure what you mean by "this". What is the "this" that you are talking about? 

 ::If you're talking about the text of the Court's opinion as printed in the article, I should point out that the text of the opinion in Georgia v. Brailsford contains no holding  no ruling by the Court  that the jury determines both the law and the facts. 

 ::Yes, that is essentially what the Court said  but that is not what the Court ruled. There is a difference. 

 ::In other words, the parties in the case were not disagreeing over whether a jury decides both law and facts. The parties were not litigating that question. What that means is that while the Court's statement on the law with respect to that subject may be correct (or may have been correct at the time of that case), the Court's statement is not a ruling, not a holding, not strictly speaking a judicial precedent in the case. Words stated about the law by a court in a case where the parties are not litigating that particular point of law are generally dicta. They're not part of any holding in that case, and they're not binding on courts in later cases. This is a difficult concept for non-lawyers, and it's something that law students learn in law school, by studying the texts of literally thousands of court cases. 

 ::The Court's opinion in this case is really a description of the contentions of the parties and a description of some instructions to a jury  ending with a short report of the verdict of the jury. 

 ::Old cases such as this one are confusing for non-lawyers, and especially confusing for people who are interested in the concept of jury nullification. For example, scammers who engage in illegal attempts to evade U.S. federal income tax sometimes try to circumvent the law by "arguing the law to the jury." That kind of tactic is generally not allowed. Jury nullification does not mean that the parties themselves (plaintiff or defendant in a civil case, prosecutor or defendant in a criminal case) have a "right" to "argue the law to the jury." Under the U.S. legal system, the judge gives the law to the jury, and the jury takes a oath to apply the law  as given by the judge  to the facts of the case. 

 ::Jury nullification comes into play primarily (to give an example) where a jury finds a defendant not guilty in a criminal case even though the members of the jury are aware that the prosecution has proved its case, but the jury disagrees with the law, etc. In such a case, the legal system does not second guess the jury. The judge will render a judgment of acquittal, even if the judge disagrees with the jury's verdict. And the prosecutor cannot appeal an acquittal in a criminal case. Further, the members of the jury cannot be punished for not following the law. 

 ::There is no ruling or holding in Georgia v. Brailsford that would give the parties in a case the right to give the jury copies of materials on the law. And there is nothing in Georgia v. Brailsford that gives the jury members some sort of right to see those kinds of materials. The jury instructions come from the judge.