There's stereotype that neither prosecuters nor defense attorneys(ies?) want critical thinkers on the jury. Limits their powers of influence.

But in the end, they only get a fixed number of preemptory challenges. (Over their unlimited number of “excused for cause” because even the judge agrees. ) I served on a jury once because the prosecutor rolled the dice on his last preemptory, knowing he would be stuck with whatever clown was next in line. I was that clown.

HN readership is large enough that we’ve pretty much regressed to the mean with respect to critical thinking. I don’t think HN readers are statistically better than average here, there’s just too many of us for that to be possible.

Can confirm, reads HN, been on jury, i am pretty dumb.

What is interesting is I have sever lawyers in my family. Criminal, corporate, and otherwise. All do trial work.

They all say no matter how many test juries (their clients sometimes actually pay for them to try out arguments on a group of people), or how much jury study they do…. it is hard to predict how a juror will act / be influenced based on demographics.

My limited experience was similar, folks were not super predictable.

HN readers should be perfect jury members then.