Yes they would, but that's NOT what the law says. I'll say it once more. If the law was "a tax stamp is required for weapons not useful to a Militia", then they jury can determine if Miller's shotgun requires a tax stamp (based on the evidence presented at the trial).
But the law doesn't say that. The law passed by Congress is very specific and very clear. The law says "shotguns less than 18". It's either/or. Over 18", no tax stamp. Less than 18", tax stamp required. How can it be plainer than that? Where's the confusion? Where's there room for interpretation?
If the jury disagrees with the law itself, they have no power to rewrite it. They can only nullify it for Miller and Layton.
Hell, another jury in another case could hear the same evidence and say the shotgun isn't useful to a Militia. (If it looked like the one posted in my post #104, how would you vote as a juror?) Then those defendants would be found guilty.
The District Court judge is obligated to explain "the law" to the jury prior to their deliberations. The law in this case consists of the Second Amendment, NFA 34, and the Supreme Court decision in Miller. "The law" is the combined effect of all three. Without going into details as to the source of the law, the judge will explain which facts, if true, would constitute the commission of a crime. It is not up to the jury to overrule the Supreme Court any more than the jury is expected to overrule Congress. Nor is the jury entitled to ignore the Second Amendment. They are all part of the law as it applies to Miller and Layton.
robertpaulsen also said: "Hell, another jury in another case could hear the same evidence and say the shotgun isn't useful to a Militia. (If it looked like the one posted in my post #104, how would you vote as a juror?) Then those defendants would be found guilty."
You have just pointed out why the Supreme Court decision in Miller is flawed. The Second Amendment does not suggest that the protection of the pre-existing right to keep and bear arms is limited to just some arms. The Supreme Court invented this distinction. If I was on a jury, I would most certainly exercise jury nullification and ignore the usefulness test. Possession of any shotgun is not a crime in my book and nobody is going to jail because of it if I have a say in it.