Quote:
As for circumstantial evidence, when a case is built on nothing else it probably shouldn't succeed.
That's precisely the attitude I'm railing against! Nothing against you, Chrishope. From what I can tell, it's a much bigger problem than just a few people.
That was a poorly considered statement on my part. I withdraw it. Circumstantial evidence should be enough to convict, but the devil will be in the details, and there will also be reasonable doubt to contend with. In the Anthony case they did a good job of introducing (manufacturing, if you prefer) reasonable doubt.
I can't go along with calling jurors stupid or assuming that someone isn't smart because they couldn't get out of jury duty. If you have statistical evidence that those selected for jury duty are of below the median IQ, I'd be interested to see it. Otherwise, I think we're going to have to assume they are all of normal intelligence. If some measure of jury intelligence exists, it might even surprise us - they might be above average. Is there any data?