I'm doing my best to stay calm, cool and collected. Perhaps my time working as a litigator, and in the court system, has jaded me, but I've come to believe that there's no such thing as a case so well-proved, well-argued and clear-cut that a jury can't completely screw it up.
I've seen verdicts derailed by juries who didn't understand THE CAPTION of a case, who decided to fill out their verdict form from back to front, who disregarded all of their instructions on the law because they "went by too fast" (around here, they don't get a copy to take back with them), who began deliberations by discussing which attorney was "cuter" or "looked more honest," or decided that a discrimination victim didn't deserve any compensation even if he'd proven his case, because he "sounded cocky."
On the other hand, I've also seen juries who took a hard look at the evidence, properly applied every instruction they were given, and did a bang-up job as the finders of fact.
The problem is, you can't tell which kind of jury you have ahead of time.
I still have faith in our system, but if I was ever [wrongly] accused, you can bet I'd be insisting on a bench trial!
