I was going to argue with you, but then I realized I agreed. It's now impossible to know whether the evidence presented to a jury was legally acquired, creating (in my mind) an automatic reasonable doubt.

I don't think it's quite that bad for a lot of the more serious crimes, specifically the "real" crimes of violence.

Unless it's a homicide, there's likely to be a victim eyewitness. Or surveillance cameras in areas where the accused has no presumption of privacy. There's also forensic evidence, which in the case of DNA is sufficiently strong in my judgement.

Unless you're inclined to dismiss the latter because you've decided the system is so corrupt even that is in doubt. But I'd hope "enough" crimes of violence can be judged safely that the deterrent effect of convictions and punishment remains.

This isn't just about convicting the guilty. If only it were, we'd have the police tossing homes like jail cells once a week, trying to ferret out the criminals.

Even criminals have rights, and they have the right to hear all evidence against them. Only then can they possibly dispute it.

Jurors who rightly believe that not all evidence was presented or at least scrutinized by the defense have a moral obligation to acquit. If this happened enough, our government would soon be forced to act more responsibly.

Be careful to not commit perjury during jury selection. They will almost certainly ask you if you have any beliefs that would prevent you from ruling based solely on the law; they want to know if you know that you are allowed to rule however you wish, regardless of what the law states, and are willing to do so.

So either lie, but know that you are lying and accept the risk, or tell them "yes" when they ask you that.

I define "belief" quite a bit differently than they do, but I'm also ignorant of the fact that we don't mean the same thing for that word. Therefor, I wouldn't be lying if I said "no".

Sounds good to me. Personally, I'd risk it as well, since negative outcomes for me are unlikely.