Actually it's common knowledge that both sides often pick jurors based on how much manipulation will work on them. Usually the most intelligent/wise prospective jurors are rejected by one side or the other. It's a game played by both the defense and prosecution to shape the jury pool into the best chance at making their own case.
Like it or not, innocent people have been convicted and the guilty have been aquitted based solely on the "product" sold to the jury. Just look at the whole O.J. trial fiasco. Even to this day, many of those jurors claim they made the right call based on the case presented, but that would only be true if they were the 12 most gullible people from the entire pool... Which comes from the process of jury selection. It's the one biggest problems I see in our justice system. A jury should actually consist of judges and experts as applicable, not of average "peers" that can be persuaded by linguistic ledgerdemain instead of common sense and hard evidence.
Bravo. I knew there were intelligent people on this forum :)
@ flags
We're not going to run out of people who don't read, comprehend, or reason, yet post fluidly.
I agree :)
so awesome... this thread should be a movie.
Who would you want to play the roll of ilikeflags? How about Ricky Gervais, an englishman whose blend of funny and offensive comments make him a star