Are we naive in thinking not a soul on the (or any?) jury really isn't reading the news at home? Or do people trust them at their word? There is no fact checking, nobody is going to their homes to check their computers or interview their families, . I know we want to take people at their word, that's human nature to trust first, ask questions later, but skeptics work on the opposite side of that track - ask questions first, ask HARD questions first. Has it ever been proven that a jury member did, in fact, read the papers or watch news and was therefore influenced and more well-informed? This is just a general question, thought, not an accusation of course, please understand. 50 years ago I'd have believed that a juror wouldn't have read a newspaper, but these days, it's hard for me to believe that they don't come across something, even unwittingly. Again, just a conversation, not an accusation, ok?