A jury *can *return any verdict for any reason, but if they blatantly disregard the law then the judge has some options.
It’s much simpler in a civil case, where the judge can simply enter a judgment not withstanding the verdict - which is basically a judgment as a matter of law. This is the simplest way of dealing with juries who want to deal with issues of law rather than fact.
Criminal cases are more difficult for various reasons. If the jury wants to convict someone when the law indicates otherwise, the judge can order a directed verdict. Obviously, state criminal procedure varies wildly, but a judge could grant a motion to set aside the judgment or even raise one sua sponte if the jury overstepped its role.
However, the most important role the judge plays is simply explaining to the jury that their role is that of fact finder, and not one of making the law. In fact, juries are clearly limited in their role - they cannot convict people of crimes that they weren’t charged with and they can’t convict someone of a crime but dictate that the crime should be a misdemeanor instead of a felony and so forth. They don’t decide the law.
If only it were that simple…
At first, John Jay stated “It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision… you [juries] have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy”.
And the 4th circuit had this to say in US v. Moylan:
“If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust, or exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the right to acquit, and the courts must abide that decision.”
But in Sparf v. US, the Supreme Court ruled that the courts have no obligation to inform the jury of their right of nullification (they never do, and they usually lead them to believe that they are only fact finders). The 2nd circuit has ruled that a juror may be removed if the court feels that he or she intends to nullify the law (US v. Thomas).
But all of this is to find someone not guily or acquit - a jury can’t change the law for a conviction - the judge can direct an acquital - and the judge can completely take over in a civil case. Of course, if it’s in equity, you don’t even need a jury. And if at law and in equity, we get to talk about the Dairy Queen doctrine, which is beautifully complicated…
