Well, I'll accept that my comment was too sparse to convey the complexities, which I am not qualified to do anyway, since we're bolding stuff for the fun of it.
Here's some additional information. Obviously, this is not legal advice:
ALR § 681. Jury as judges of law; jury nullification
Sometimes, under express statutory or constitutional provisions, the jury in criminal trials or at least in trials for certain particular crimes has been given the right to determine questions of both law and fact.[FN1] Such provisions are not intended to give the jury the right to disregard the law.[FN2] While the jury, under such a provision, has the right to determine both the law and the facts, it is not strictly true that it is the sole judge of the law of the case. Such a provision means that the jury has the right to determine all questions of law applicable to such matters as they are required to consider in making up their verdict. It is their duty to apply the law to the facts of the case, and they have to be judge of both and to come to a conclusion as to both.[FN3]
The constitutionality of a statute under which a person is prosecuted is a matter for the court to determine, and it is the duty of the jury to accept the court's determination.[FN4] A jury may not determine or weigh the utility or validity of a law.[FN5]
Practice Tip: "Jury nullification" is a jury's knowing and deliberate rejection of the evidence or refusal to apply the law either because the jury wants to send a message about some social issue that is larger than the case itself, or because the result dictated by law is contrary to the jury's sense of justice, morality, or fairness.[FN6] A court properly denies defense counsel the opportunity to present the concept of jury nullification to the jury. The so-called "mercy-dispensing power" is not a legally sanctioned function of the jury, and to permit defense counsel to encourage the jury to abdicate its primary function would directly contravene the trial court's authority to instruct the jury that they must follow and properly apply the law.[FN7] Jury nullification is inconsistent with a jury's duty to return a guilty verdict of the highest crime proved beyond a reasonable doubt.[FN8]
From your link:
Judicial acceptance of nullification began to wane, however, in the late 1800s. In 1895, in United States v Sparf, the U. S. Supreme Court voted 7 to 2 to uphold the conviction in a case in which the trial judge refused the defense attorney's request to let the jury know of their nullification power.
Courts recently have been reluctant to encourage jury nullification, and in fact have taken several steps to prevent it. In most jurisdictions, judges instruct jurors that it is their duty to apply the law as it is given to them, whether they agree with the law or not. Only in a handful of states are jurors told that they have the power to judge both the facts and the law of the case. Most judges also will prohibit attorneys from using their closing arguments to directly appeal to jurors to nullify the law.
Recently, several courts have indicated that judges also have the right, when it is brought to their attention by other jurors, to remove (prior to a verdict, of course) from juries any juror who makes clear his or her intention to vote to nullify the law.
