Everyone says this but when people say "critical thinking skills" it really means "is obvious they will willfully disobey the instructions given to them by the judge and hold their own moral/ethical code above the law."

You're literally describing jury nullification in a situation where by the hypothetical judge's instructions they're obviously guilty. I might agree with you that the law is bullshit but by right you and I should be dismissed.

> hold their own moral/ethical code above the law ... I might agree with you that the law is bullshit

This is the entire reason that we have trial by jury and not trial by judge. I'm not sure how this got lost over the centuries. If 12 of your peers think you did it but the law is bullshit and you shouldn't have your life destroyed because of some stupid technicality in a bullshit law, then you should walk free! I'm aware this has been used to horrible ends in the past (e.g. 12 white jurors nullifying a lynching) but that's a problem with jury selection (and those so-called peers), not with nullification.

> You're literally describing jury nullification in a situation where by the hypothetical judge's instructions they're obviously guilty

Yes, that is the only time nullification is relevant. If a judge can lead the jury to one verdict or another via his instructions, then it's not a trial by jury at all. It's a trial by judge. The founders understood that -- they didn't want a trial by judge. The jury is a check on the judge's power!

Jury is peer, not subordinate of judge, and they should keep each other in check. Some tyrannical judges don't understand this. Sometimes the judge has to be reminded he is wrong in a way he can't prove he's been reminded, however.