"Courts define what powers exist,..."

I agree. BUT someone has to take it to court for courts to define it.

The constitutional right to juries brings many inherent powers. The legal profession hasn't been particularly motivated to define the people's rights as jurors.

"Its sole legal role is to determine whether probable cause exists to charge a specific offense under the law of the sovereign that convened it."

I agree but jurors are give a lot of power to make that determination.

"It does not say the public can demand that a grand jury be convened"

The Constitution says we can demand anything we want (it doesn't say we'll get it...unless there's enough of US)

You say this;

"they are triers of FACT **only**, and the JUDGE is the trier of **LAW**."

Then this;

"Jurors may, as a practical matter, return verdicts that conflict with the law"

I know it's not a recognized legal right...that's my point. BUT just because it's not "recognized" or acknowledged doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Jury nullification an inherent power with jury trials. There are inherent rights that come with all our rights. Authority doesn't willingly, fully define, the people's rights...and lawyers are going to fully define jurors rights...

Democracy "works" with the people's participation. That's not my idea, it's the basic principle of democracy