Questions: Jurors, diversity, intelligence etc
How does a juror get away with admitting that they didn't base their conclusion solely on the evidence? One of the jurors openly said she considered it payback for Rodney King. Is that not contempt of court?
How does a jury of one's peers in the USA comprise of 15 blacks out of 24 jurors and alternates, when the USA has a black population of around 12%? If the reason is that one's peers are chosen more locally and therefore more fairly, why not make the jury up of Brentwood residents? Wouldn't that be fairer?
The final jury of 12 consisted of 10 women and 2 men. Is that fair and representative?
Apparently three quarters of the jury thought O.J. Simpson was less likely to have murdered his wife because he had excelled at football. Is that reason enough to consider the jury incapable of reaching a reasonable decision? If someone can be excluded from a jury on the basis of their prejudice, should some people be excluded on the basis of their low IQ?
Why is it that long trials, which inevitably involve the most complicated evidence, are heard by juries who are selected partly on the basis that they do not comprise the "upper echelons" of society? Surely someone who runs a large corporation has as much of a duty to society to do jury service as anyone else? Does helping a corporation make money outweigh justice being served, and justice being seen to be done?
Why did judge Ito allow jurors to walk around the Simpson house? Why did the judge allow the defence to fictionalise Simpson's homelife by changing the photos hanging on his walls? Did Ito pander to the jury wanting just to see his mansion and get a taste of the Hollwood glamour?
My final burning question: Is Danny Bakewell related to Rachel Dolezal?