The outcome can also be determined by the instructions given to the jury by the judge, which may severely limit the breadth of scope with which they can view the evidence and come to a finding. Most jurists are not aware of jury nullification. The jury can be instructed in such a way as to stack the bias either for or against the defendent, depending upon the situation. I've served on a jury and our jury was given specific instructions on "how we must interpret the evidence presented" and what we were allowed to consider when reaching our verdict. In other words, if the court and the prosecutors brought evidence that a law was broken, even if jury members thought the law was rediculous, they would be instructed that they must vote for a guilty verdict in that case. Well, are they legally obligated to do so? I don't think so. I think they could vote "not guilty" without being prosecuted.
Prior to the trial, we were each questioned by both the defense and the prosecution to see if they could determine any pre bias on our part, prior to the trial being commenced. They could then dismiss you if they felt you wouldn't be unbiased. So the jury can also be stacked in one form or another with a bias towards only voting in regards to whether a said law was broken or not.
In this case, a law was broken, accidently, as I hear it. Is this a good law? Maybe it needs revamping. However, the prosecutor went after this one. Maybe he/she was trying to move up the ladder. People can easily be trapped by an overbearing, over powered government. Any government big enough to give you most of what you need, is also powerful enough to take most of what you have.