Oh, and juries do sometimes get it wrong, notwithstanding all you say about how much evidence they heard, etc. Juries have often convicted people who were later found to be not guilty on the basis of DNA evidence that wasn’t available at the trial. And in a 2007 study in which judges agreed to fill out surveys about what they thought the correct outcome should be while the jury was deliberating, the judge and the jury agreed only 77% of the time. That’s not a high degree of agreement considering you’d expect random chance (e.g., a coin toss) would produce agreement 50% of the time. Of course, you can’t assume the judge is always right, so the author of the study assumed the judge and jury have roughly an equal likelihood of getting it right, and concluded the jury gets it right about 87% of the time or less. (My own view would be that the judge is somewhat more likely than the jury to get it right, inter alia because the judge is less likely to be confused about what the law is, or how the law applies to a given set of facts, or what “reasonable doubt” means in the context of a criminal trial).