It started with a note from the jury barely an hour into deliberations, an unusual question that went way beyond the scope of the federal drug-trafficking trial.

"Given that it took the 18th Amendment of the US Constitution in 1919 to pave the way for Prohibition," a juror wanted to know from the judge, where "is the constitutional grant of authority to ban mere possession of cocaine today?"

To a casual observer, the question in the Boston courtroom might merely have been the musing of a juror with some knowledge of American history. But US District Court Judge William G. Young said the note and others that followed represented something he had never seen in 30 years as a judge: a rogue juror challenging the legitimacy of a criminal law used to prosecute a defendant.

Young wrote that Eddlem's actions in March, which went unreported, marked the first time he "has encountered a juror who has attempted to arrogate to himself the power that our Constitution places in the elected branches of government."

Boston Globe

Edt: HST

Seems like a perfectly legitimate question to me.

some reading...

“ The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy. ”

—John Jay, first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court

of the courts in the 40's, now the constitution means whatever they want it to mean and the federal governemnt is unquestionable, Jay be damned, Madison as well.........

you can't snort cocaine?