The juror and the judge differed on a constitutional interpretation. The judge, by virtue of the power vested in his position, won. The question remains, in a debate over the law and constitution, without far reaching precedent to predetermine the answer, who would win the argument? After all, imagine that you were handed a copy of the federal constitution and asked to justify a federal law against drug distribution. Would your first answer be that it was valid because it affects commerce? Honestly?
Of course, the commentary descends into an argument over the wonderfulness of jury nullification which I've addressed over at CLTV here.