I can say that as a former prosecutor and current civil litigation attorney that this has been my experieince with juries. The more diverse the background of the jurors, the more inquisitive, and the better the jury is. Your average Joe or Jane off the street, when presented with two stories and given the standard by which to judge the case, does a very good and impartial job of making the right decision.

Remember, a criminal defendant can waive a jury and have the case tried to a judge, and in civil cases both sides can agree to waive the jury and try the case to a judge. The reason jury trials are so common is because they work best.

No, I haven't been on a jury, so my experience is VERY limited to the one day (that I had to show up) where I sat in a room of approx. 150 people for the "pool" (none were used that day). I sure hope most of them would have been eliminated from actually serving on a jury, because I was in the midst of folks (listening to many of them chat during the day) that had NO business deciding anyone's fate imo. I trust you guys "in the system" who say it actually works out in the end...

I was impressed by the two juries I was on. I think the judge, prosecutor, and defense attorney have a good handle on who should be there and who shouldn't.

I especially liked one judge who finally interrupted the lawyers and told a potential juror who kept making comments during voir dire : " sir you do not need to say another word, you will not be a juror"