I think he's overstating the intent of the judge's question. What I think the judge is asking is "If I instruct you to disregard this witnesses' testimony, or instruct you not to discuss the case outside this courtroom or instruct you not to read or watch any news coverage of this case, will you be able to follow my instructions?"
Judges believe that most of their decisions are based on the laws handed down by USOC or their state Supreme Court or an appeals court. IOW, that is "the law". When the judge makes these instructions, it is to insure a fair trial instead of a mistrial or a case overturned on appeal.
I don't think the judge was asking them to rip up their legal rights and blindly follow the judge's every belief.
Besides, if one is asked to sit on a jury, it is to determine whether the facts of the case match the law, not to decide if the law itself is fair or correct. I can believe prostitution should be legal but, while it is illegal, decide that a prostitute broke the law engaging in prostitution.
I may disagree with some gun laws but, if someone is held in violation of that law, I can still agree that the defendant violated the law, which is generally what the jury is being asked to decide.
If the author wants to *change* the laws, he should run for office.
That was not the intent of the judge's instructions. Judges do have the duty to instruct the jury on what the law is, but often view the domain of the law as theirs alone, reserving judgment of the facts to the jury. But that is simply not the case, as Dougherty points out, all juries have an "unreviewable and irreversible power ... to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge. This fully comports with the view of John Adams, who I think fairly represents the view of his time: 'It is not only (the juror's) right, but his duty ... to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, even though in direct opposition to the direction of the court'
Jurors are supposed to be a citizen bulwark against government tyranny. There are sometimes cases where a just law is being applied unjustly, or the law itself is unjust. The Founders believed that any 'law' that violates someone's God-given inalienable rights is void, and should be disregarded. As the saying goes, "An unjust law is no law at all." Besides, judges are not always right on the law. If they were, they would never have any of their decisions overturned.
As an example to consider; had you been a juror at the time, would you have voted to convict and imprison people who violated the fugitive slave laws? I would hope that you wouldn't let the government steer your vote in the juror box any more than you would let the government steer your vote at the ballot box.
Cordially,
You may hear whatever you wish to hear.
The words I read are plain enough and, if ambiguous purposely so.