Read the following two passages regarding the historical role of juries in early American law.
Passage A
During the founding era of the United States, juries were widely understood to possess the right to decide both the facts of a case and the law itself. This principle was not viewed as a subversion of the legal order but as a fundamental democratic check on arbitrary judicial power. Leading statesmen championed the jury's authority to interpret the law according to their conscience. When judges issued instructions on the law, these were generally considered advisory rather than binding. Thus, the early American jury functioned as a co-equal interpreter of legal statutes, firmly embedded in the constitutional framework as a bulwark of popular sovereignty.
Passage B
Modern romanticization of early American legal history often overstates the extent to which founding-era juries were authorized to determine the law. While juries could issue general verdicts—essentially rendering their application of the law unreviewable—this was recognized by most legal elites as an incidental power, not a vested right. A careful review of judicial instructions from the period reveals that judges routinely directed juries that they were bound to apply the law as dictated by the bench. Instances where juries defied these instructions were largely regarded as aberrations against established jurisprudence, rather than the exercise of a widely accepted legal prerogative.
Determine whether the following statement is true or false based on the texts:
The authors of Passage A and Passage B disagree over whether founding-era juries possessed the practical ability to issue verdicts that defied judicial instructions on the law.
Answer: Answer