None of you will never, ever be picked for an actual jury. I can tell by the punctuation, style and grammer that everyone here(except me) has more than a 67 IQ. That is grounds for disqualification by one side or the other.
Of the juries I've been involved with, one had a doctor, one had two doctors, another had a pilot, another had two pilots (one of whom was a doctor), another had a lawyer, several had engineers. There have been a few teachers, one PhD, one biologist, and a few other professionals.
There have been plumbers, electricians, retired soldiers, watermen, and miners.
Heck, a guy who was
homeless showed up for jury duty every time his pool was called. We still haven't figured out how he got the notice, because he had neither mailbox nor phone.
I suppose the other members were gullible dummies, though. That doesn't follow either, because I've never seen a deadlocked jury.
So while thinking juries are composed of those of us who are easily led (supposedly astray from the shining path of justice by slimy attorneys), the reality isn't so simple. The purpose of a jury is to provide an unbiased cross-section of the community, and so far, based on my own experiences, it works pretty well at doing that.
That's not to say that juries can't get confused. That's not to say lawyers don't try and pick those jurors most sympathetic to their causes. That's not to say that issues aren't intentionally clouded. I've seen all of that first-hand, as well. But it's simply not accurate to say that juries are composed of dummies. They
UNIFORMLY have done their respective bests to reach the right result.
If anyone truly believes that jurors are idiots, when you're a criminal defendant, be sure to do the following: 1) let the members of the jury know how you feel about them; and 2) perhaps pause to remember that the jury has a pair of scissors and is eying the thin thread that is your life.
Item #2 is worth thinking about the next time there's a jury summons in the mailbox.
)
