I need an example essay for the following scenario:

In this case, the defendant was charged with possession of marijuana, based on a search of his car following a traffic stop for speeding. The police did not charge him with speeding, only with possession of marijuana.

After the prosecution and defense presented their closing arguments, the judge provided instructions with relevant applicable laws. The jurors were told that they must adhere to the stated laws in making their decision regardless of what they believe the law is or ought to be.

During the deliberations, several jurors discussed their anger at the police and prosecutors for using the speeding charge just to stop the defendant's car and search it. The entire jury then decided that they wanted to send a message to the police and prosecutors that they should be focusing on "real" crimes and leave people in possession of marijuana alone, even though it was still illegal in their state. Their belief was that voting "not guilty" would be a message to the prosecutors and the police.

• What was the jury's scope in this trial? Do you think they exceeded their scope? Why or why not?
• What are your thoughts on the jury's actions?
• Was the jury justified in their verdict?
• Do you think a remedy for the jury's action is necessary? If so, what would you recommend?