# Question for lawyers: Do you really want stupid/ignorant jurors? **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [September 2, 2014, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-lawyers-do-you-really-want-stupid-ignorant-jurors/697259 "2014-09-02T16:07:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2014, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-lawyers-do-you-really-want-stupid-ignorant-jurors/697259/41 "2014-09-05T00:13:46Z")
The law has a schizophrenic view of the role of jurors. The whole purpose of having a jury is for them to bring in their various life experiences… and they’re then told that they’re supposed to leave all experience at the door. We’re told repeatedly that the jurors are the finders of fact… except that they’re supposed to only choose among the facts that the lawyers have found for them. A jury cannot function properly in a vacuum, and a judge or lawyer who says that they should is, quite simply, wrong. And in my experience in academia, in a physics department of approximately 100 people, over a span of time of 13 years, the number who were ever called to serve on a jury was exactly zero. Clearly, there was someone in the courtroom who really didn’t want physicists. ---
**Author:** ![OldGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/3bc359/32.png) [@OldGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OldGuy)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2014, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-lawyers-do-you-really-want-stupid-ignorant-jurors/697259/42 "2014-09-05T00:53:39Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > And in my experience in academia, in a physics department of approximately 100 people, over a span of time of 13 years, the number who were ever called to serve on a jury was exactly zero. Clearly, there was someone in the courtroom who really didn’t want physicists. No one has been called?r no one has actually served on a jury? The discussion here is not at all about who is called which is supposedly random. Though, in Physics Departments I’m familiar with of those 100 people easily half or more of them might not be U.S. citizens and not be eligible. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2014, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-lawyers-do-you-really-want-stupid-ignorant-jurors/697259/43 "2014-09-05T01:47:17Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > The law has a schizophrenic view of the role of jurors. The whole purpose of having a jury is for them to bring in their various life experiences… and they’re then told that they’re supposed to leave all experience at the door. We’re told repeatedly that the jurors are the finders of fact… except that they’re supposed to only choose among the facts that the lawyers have found for them. A jury cannot function properly in a vacuum, and a judge or lawyer who says that they should is, quite simply, wrong. Every jury I’ve ever seen deliberate has been instructed on exactly that point, in exactly the way it seems you’re calling for. From a randomly selected jury instruction (for Illinois, which just happened to be the first to pop up in a search): > [@](#): > > [4] You will decide what facts have been proven. Facts may be proven by evidence or > reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence. Evidence consists of the testimony of witnesses > and of exhibits admitted by the court. You should consider all the evidence without regard to > which party produced it. You may use common sense gained from your experiences in life, in > evaluating what you see and hear during trial. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2014, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-lawyers-do-you-really-want-stupid-ignorant-jurors/697259/44 "2014-09-05T03:24:38Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > And in my experience in academia, in a physics department of approximately 100 people, over a span of time of 13 years, the number who were ever called to serve on a jury was exactly zero. Clearly, there was someone in the courtroom who really didn’t want physicists. How many were American citizens? In the 200 people Chemistry department I was a part for, it would have been less than 20. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2014, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-lawyers-do-you-really-want-stupid-ignorant-jurors/697259/45 "2014-09-05T14:48:08Z")
> [@Valgard](#): > > IIRC from my most recent jury duty, being a law enforcement officer was an automatic excuse. The attorneys had nothing to do with it. I assume this can vary from locale to locale. It’s been more than 40 years since I was sworn in as a deputy sheriff. I will never be picked to serve on a jury as a result. But that doesn’t stop them from calling me up every couple of years and wasting my time. I wish I could get them to take my name off the rolls, but that ain’t gonna happen. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2014, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-lawyers-do-you-really-want-stupid-ignorant-jurors/697259/46 "2014-09-05T17:47:52Z")
So it is correct then to assume that due to the cross-examination process, and whatever objective vetting done by the judge, witnesses, even biased ones, on the stand are seen as more fair for the legal system to allow rather than a juror whose expertise cannot be cross-examined even though the stated objective for voir dire is to get 12 average, random people which presumably equal tendencies for bias on either side? ---
**Author:** ![Calatin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/439d5e/32.png) [@Calatin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Calatin)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2014, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-lawyers-do-you-really-want-stupid-ignorant-jurors/697259/47 "2014-09-05T18:10:54Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > So it is correct then to assume that due to the cross-examination process, and whatever objective vetting done by the judge, witnesses, even biased ones, on the stand are seen as more fair for the legal system to allow rather than a juror whose expertise cannot be cross-examined even though the stated objective for voir dire is to get 12 average, random people which presumably equal tendencies for bias on either side? Yes. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2014, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-lawyers-do-you-really-want-stupid-ignorant-jurors/697259/48 "2014-09-05T20:12:20Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > That seem fair? What doesn’t seem fair to me is attorneys lying. Mr. Plant’s Attorney: “Mrs. Plant acquired so much debt that when Mr. Plant’s Mother died, he mortgaged her home and rented it out to pay the mortgage, while the Plants lived in a mobile home.” Mrs. Plant’s Attorney: “While Mr. and Mrs. Plant were enjoying their two homes.” ---
**Author:** ![RivkahChaya](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rivkahchaya/32/8919_2.png) [@RivkahChaya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RivkahChaya)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2014, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-lawyers-do-you-really-want-stupid-ignorant-jurors/697259/49 "2014-09-05T20:42:43Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > I think the answer to your question is almost entirely confirmation bias, then. There may be a reason for that, though. High-profile trials, the ones where juror interviews happen in the first place, and then get made public, are the kinds of trials where it becomes difficult to find people who haven’t read a lot about the case. The last jury I served on was for a case that had not had any press coverage. The OJ Simpson case had had tons of coverage, for example. One juror was someone who had just returned to the country from Japan; many of the others were people who avoided newspapers and anything to do with the news, so they knew very little about the case. So, the more likely you are to have heard about the case, and to see an interview with a juror, the more likely it is to be a case where the jurors are going to be people who live under rocks. Then, people who are not generally in the public eye tend to come across badly in interviews, so a lot of jurors who are interviewed after trials don’t sound like mental giants, because they are nervous; and further, more circumspect (and brighter) people are going to refuse to do interviews, because they know they won’t come across well. So, you get the less bright jurors giving interviews, and when they do, they seem even dumber than they actually are. But those people don’t represent all jurors. ---
**Author:** ![Calatin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/439d5e/32.png) [@Calatin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Calatin)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2014, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-lawyers-do-you-really-want-stupid-ignorant-jurors/697259/50 "2014-09-05T20:44:31Z")
> [@carnivorousplant](#): > > What doesn’t seem fair to me is attorneys lying. > > Mr. Plant’s Attorney: “Mrs. Plant acquired so much debt that when Mr. Plant’s Mother died, he mortgaged her home and rented it out to pay the mortgage, while the Plants lived in a mobile home.” > > Mrs. Plant’s Attorney: “While Mr. and Mrs. Plant were enjoying their two homes.” [Enjoy](https://www.google.com/search?q=enjoy&oq=enjoy&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.718j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8)- possess and benefit from. They are benefiting from the use of the mobile home, and from the rent from Mr. Plant’s mother’s home. Pedantic argument, I know, but I wouldn’t call it lying. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2014, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-lawyers-do-you-really-want-stupid-ignorant-jurors/697259/51 "2014-09-05T21:17:19Z")
> [@Calatin](#): > > [Enjoy](https://www.google.com/search?q=enjoy&oq=enjoy&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.718j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8)- possess and benefit from. > > They are benefiting from the use of the mobile home, and from the rent from Mr. Plant’s mother’s home. > > Pedantic argument, I know, but I wouldn’t call it lying. I’m with Shakespeare on this one. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Urbanredneck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ea5d25/32.png) [@Urbanredneck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Urbanredneck)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2014, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-lawyers-do-you-really-want-stupid-ignorant-jurors/697259/52 "2014-09-05T21:28:36Z")
> [@Aspenglow](#): > > I think most jurors try very hard to do their job well, but the complexity of the law has outstripped the ability of many to grasp their purpose. Virtually every mistrial I ever saw declared was as a result of juror misconduct – some willful, most not. Nothing more frustrating than spending 8 weeks on a complicated trial and then having to mis-try it owing to a “helpful” juror who brought a dictionary into the jury deliberation room because the jury was confused about a definition. The jury instructions often only confuse them; the terms of art don’t mean anything to them – even the smart ones. Lawyers bandy about terms like comparative negligence and causation, and those terms are meaningful to folks in the biz. To layperson jurors? Not so much. > > My experiences showed me that most lawyers just go with their gut on whether or not to keep or excuse a juror. Some were good at picking juries and others weren’t. And yeah, the Rogue Juror is always the one to avoid, smart OR dumb. That reminds me of the movie “12 Angry Men”. Supreme court Justice Scolia said that was here favorite film AND is the film she shows potential jurors of things to NOT do. If your unfamiliar with the movie the hero is on a jury where he is the odd man out and over a day he influences the other jurors to change their minds. How? He does his own detective work, going out on the street to find evidence and bring it to the jury. Truth is on a jury you can only use the evidence presented and nothing more. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-for-lawyers-do-you-really-want-stupid-ignorant-jurors/697259.md?page=2)