>
>
> Here in the US, it frequently seems that ill-educated jurors are more
> likely to get to hear a case than well-educated ones: when the lawyers
are
> interviewing potential jurors at the start of a trial, each side is
allowed
> to reject a certain number without having to explain why, and many times
as
> soon as they learn that a person is well-educated or has a job that
> suggests that they are well-educated, that juror is dismissed. The idea,
> apparently, is that the lawyers don't want educated persons who will think
> for themselves, but rather jurors who are likely to listen to what the
> lawyers say and vote the way they want them to.
>
The jury that I was on didn't operate that way. I consider myself to be
fairly well educated. :-) We also had a martial arts expert on who saw,
from body positions, that it was virtually impossible for the defendant to
be telling the truth. That helped us in finding him guilty "beyond
reasonable doubt."
Also, we found the police did not tell the truth. They stated that they
only touched someone with one hand, when they clearly touched them with two.
But, the second touch was very light and barely noticable after multiple
replays of the vidio. We concluded that the officer simply didn't notice
the very light touch. Lying about that particular point would have been
stupid...since it didn't really matter. The lie of the defendant was
critical to his defense.
Dan M.
