This was in another thread, but I’ll take it up here to avoid a further hijack:
I find it just amazing that being thoughtful and analytical is cause for dismissal from a jury! No wonder OJ got acquitted!
Then there’s this, which is about how in Canada lawyers – or anyone who’s even been to law school – is automatically disqualified from jury duty:
I have heard or read about instances in both American and Canadian courts where the judge instructs the jury on points of law, such as why certain facts are relevant and others are not and why they should not be considered in rendering a verdict. Where there is an option to select a trial by judge or by jury, a defendant and his lawyer will often opt for a judge-only trial where general public perceptions and biases would tend to run against the defendant.
In the sexual assault trial of radio host Jian Ghomeshi in Toronto, for example, the decision to be tried by judge alone was a wise one from his standpoint. The judge, ruling strictly on points of law and the credibility of witnesses, declared Ghomeshi not guilty. Ghomeshi by then had become such a reviled figure that protests broke out over the verdict. But the legal community widely praised the correctness of the judge’s ruling. There is little doubt in my mind how a jury would have decided the case, no matter what instructions the judge gave them.