Yep. It's called Jury Nullification and most courts these days think the very concept should be forbidden. Judges will try to tell juries that they have to vote based solely on the facts and arguments presented in court but that's not really true. If juries were supposed to decide that way, it makes no sense for juries to be comprised of our peers, or common men, if you prefer. No, it'd make more sense to have juries made up of lawyers and legislators if they were supposed to decide solely on facts and arguments. The only reason to try cases before a jury of our peers is so that the common people can act as a barrier against government overreach and to void unfair laws by refusing to convict people of violating them.