Jurors most certainly do not always follow jury instructions. I tell law students that if they want to meet a jury, go online.
I've seen a decay in jury quality to a point to where I believe it is time that we either have professional jurors (especially in capital cases) or we require all prospective jurors to first pass an applied logic test before they can be considered for voir dire.
Wudge, you and I agree! My mother, RIP, said the EXACT same thing!
I have long said that if the Ramseys had been indicted, there was a very good chance they would have been convicted.
Again, we are in agreement! Boy, that must be a record!
Obviously, my position is not based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Mine is, but I see what you're saying. I do. MY OPINION: the doubts I've heard about their guilt are not reasonable. You can take that as a pun if you like, but that's not my intent. To me, and again, this is just my two cents, they'd be doing the right thing for the wrong reason. But unlike some people, maybe you, I don't know, I don't have any kind of moral problem with doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. Indeed, I count on it. To me, as long as the right thing gets done at all, the reasons are none of my business.
My position is based on my belief that many stealth jurors would have made it into the jury box.
I don't doubt it. Any jury you pick, at least one like me is gonna be there. Incidentally, I have an idea what you mean, but just for the tally books, what do you mean exactly when you say "stealth juror?"