Would You Want to Trust Your Freedom to 12 Strangers?

The movie, which seems to hew pretty close to the true story according to what I've found on the Internet, at least one member of the first jury was ready to convict on very flimsy evidence. He seemed to be convinced on the erroneous eyewitnesses.

I have, as I am sure many others on here have, often been exposed to how poorly most of us observe and remember what we observe. As an intelligence analyst I learned that "eyewitness" observations by persons not directly involved in an event is among the poorest evidence to rely on. Direct observation by participants in the event is only slightly better. But the court, based on common law, holds eyewitness testimony to be the best evidence. I prefer physical evidence, such as catching the accused with money that I can prove was taken during a robbery.

I would not like to risk my freedom or my life to 12 random strangers on a jury. They have not trained to analyze evidence, at least not by the court. I am confident that they are as honest as any other 12 people and have nothing against the accused. But their lack of expertise would frighten me.

For that matter, what kind of evidence would a thinking jurist need to convict? I would need a lot. Maybe that is why the police seem so determined to obtain an admission of guilt from the accused. It is the one thing that would be sure to convince me.

The best diplomat I know is a fully charged phaser bank.