If you've ever read Homicide by David Simon

it's got an account of an actual trial verdict and the jurors talked afterwards about why they voted the way they did - an obviously guilty man was found guilty, but the reasons were...not great...

It's held up as the gold standard but the experience of Old Woman (I've never been called) who has served as a juror back up what you say. It's all very arbitrary and it all depends on the prejudices and opinions of the jurors much more than what the law says or what is said in court.

It's hard to think of an alternative though. Professional jurors are evaluated on what grounds - "you came to the wrong verdict here"? That's a very slippery slope.

Mind you in the US the top court is blatantly politically partisan with at least two of the judges on it openly accepting lavish "hospitality" from big donors to the party which appointed them. The very fact that they discuss the split between "conservative" and "liberal" judges sends shivers down my spine. Contrast with our own senior judges who if nothing else are fiercely independent and rightly so.

Posted By: Old Man, Mar 1, 13:12:54