It would appear you do not understand much about the purpose of trial by jury. If your job was to do what the judge told you there would be no reason to have juries.
"It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision you [juries] have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy".
— First Chief Justice John Jay
State Of Georgia v. Brailsford (1794)
Slashdot Mirror
It would appear you do not understand much about the purpose of trial by jury. If your job was to do what the judge told you there would be no reason to have juries. "It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision you [juries] have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy". — First Chief Justice John Jay State Of Georgia v. Brailsford (1794)