Article the eighth [Amendment VI]

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Article the ninth [Amendment VII]

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

In 1804, Samuel Chase, Supreme Court Justice and signer of the Declaration of Independence said: "The jury has the right to judge both the law and the facts". And also keep in mind that "either we all hang together, or we most assuredly will all hang separately".

CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA of 1849 We, the people of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings, do establish this Constitution:
ARTICLE I. Declaration of Rights. Sec. 9. Every citizen may freely speak, write, and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right; and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press. In all criminal prosecutions on indictments for libels, the truth may be given in evidence to the jury; and if it shall appear to the jury that the matter charged as libellous is true, and was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted; and the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the fact. 

The fact that there is no judicial power in a Trial By Jury is most clearly emphasized by the very reason for Trial By Jury: which is to eliminate judicial corruption. In a Trial By Jury the jury is the judge and the judiciary has no power and no sway, the jury determines both the law and the fact. A judge who excludes evidence from a Trial By Jury breaks the law and commits treason.  By excluding evidence a judge puts themselves in a position to fix the outcome of a trial.

Perhaps the most explicit example of judicial corruption in the U.S. is the judiciary's interpretation of the 11th Amendment see 11th: No Judicial Power.  The 11th is neither ambiguous nor complicated, the amendment was implemented so as to explicitly eliminate judicial power when a suit is brought against a judge's boss.  However, judges have invented the most absurd interpretations of the 11th ranging from claims that it eliminates the right to sue to some how inventing some sort of judicial or governmental immunity.  Recognize that there is no need for judicial interpretation of the law since under common-law if a common person cannot understand the law, it is not law.  Judges are here only to administer the courts not to make law. Where a party specifically decides to forego the right to have a jury decide the outcome of a case, or when the value in controversy is less than twenty dollars and only then, a judge is allowed to judge the case.

Courts of Equity

You cannot be forced into a Court of Equity where there is a legal remedy.  See Federal Judiciary Act (1789 ) SEC. 16. "And be it further enacted, That suits in equity shall not be sustained in either of the courts of the United States, in any case where plain, adequate and complete remedy may be had at law."  This means that anyone who has been told that they are not entitled to a Trial By Jury in Family Court has been lied to.  They may go back to court and reverse any and all decisions corrupt judges forced on them through divorce cases.  This is extraordinarily significant and yet another example of how utterly corrupt and criminal in form and nature courts and the judiciary has been over the last 50 years in the U.S.