When each individual's circumstances and their cases presented result in a final constellation of verdicts that rewards the friends of the powerful and punishes those whom they dislike, it's naive to the point of idiocy to believe there aren't systemic forces at play. It's very possible the jurors believed they were being objective. The larger picture of what happened, in the end, says that they are not so fair as they believed.
I have always said, and still believe, that the constitution is a document so flawed at such a fundamental level that there's little point in me engaging with it on a line-by-line basis. But here we are, all living under its sway; and, so, yes, I will be challenging the illegal vote you brought, and probably the very likely illegal sentences handed out, and I will certainly be proposing amendments, which I'm sure will be given entirely fair consideration by our Council, which is headed by someone who characterizes political dissent as "complaining."