The quality of the average jury

[happyhaddock]

Straying into the Realm of Opinion

... Don’t email me telling me that I’m wildly off track. It’s my opinion, I’m entitled to it. And you won’t convince me to change my mind that a lot of criminal defense attorneys are bad, bad lawyers. ...

... But even if you set aside the issue of the quality of the representation and the low standards for court-appointed lawyers, there’s the juries to consider. A few years ago, many states started moving away from selecting potential jurors based on voter registrations and instead moved to a system of selection based on driver’s licenses. And what a difference that made to the quality of the jury pool. Needless to say, there’s a tremendous difference in the education and intelligence of the average driver’s license holder vs. the average registered voter. Felons who can’t register to vote can now appear on juries. People who aren’t informed enough to have enough of an opinion to cast a ballot now appear on juries. Ask lawyers who’ve been in practice long enough to witness the change and they’ll tell you that the quality of the average jury plummeted. ...

[Maggie]

I think basic tests should be required for ALL potential jurors and they should be required to demonstrate at LEAST a high school education level.... also tests for BASIC reasoning skills as well as a psychological screen.

Any prosecutor that intends to introduce evidence of a scientific nature should be FORCED to endure jury members that have demonstated they can understand the basic elements of the evidence.

Prosecutors pick stupid jurors on purpose, and that is just wrong.

[Paka]

One of the forensics courses I took in college, "Forensic Science in the Courtroom," addressed just this issue. It turns out, you are advised to word your testimony at the level a 6th grader could understand it-- complex terminology and concepts have to be presented in a way that can be understood by those with no background, visual displays and such should be used if possible to help keep those with a very short attention span tuned in, and if you can't keep them interested you risk losing them, your credibility with them, no matter how sound the science. They will tend to place more credence on unreliable witness testimony than on scientific evidence anyways, and then you get the ones who think they are experts because they watched a few TV shows.

My husband was recently in the jury pool for a capital murder case tried in Daytona that resulted in one life sentence and one death sentence. He wasn't chosen (I'm sure his outspoken opposition to the DP was part of the reason, lol), but he saw the ones picked and was surprised by how ignorant they were in general as shown by questions asked. This case was an interesting one as there was no scientific evidence; it was totally circumstantial and based on witness/informant testimony about those accused being with the victim beforehand, and it turned out it only took 90 minutes for a verdict to be returned.