True but we're talking about juries who are essentially random members of the public and are far from guaranteed to spot a fallacy or buy that it is a fallacy even when pointed out. I think a big difference to them could be how cars are socially normalised but tor is not. There's a good chunk of the population who would hear the car version and think "that's ridiculous, I drive a car!" but hear the tor version and think "that's a strange and alien thing to me, definitely something a suspicious person would do".
> True but we're talking about juries who are essentially random members of the public and are far from guaranteed to spot a fallacy or buy that it is a fallacy even when pointed out.
In the US, at least, juries are generally less sophisticated than a random sample of the general public; anyone who displays significant world knowledge or critical thinking during jury selection will be removed.
This is not actually true. Lawyers prefer jurors with critical thinking skills because it means they can be reasoned to; jurors without critical thinking skills are unpredictable wildcards.
Most jurors are gainfully employed in stable jobs, or were but are now retired, and care enough about their civic responsibilities not to try to get out of jury duty.
Lawyers for one side will have a preference for certain jurors; the other side's lawyers might like a few wild-cards (as to increase the chance of a hung jury).
Usually people "too knowledgeable" get bumped from the pool.
the other side's lawyers might like a few wild-cards (as to increase the chance of a hung jury).
No, never. The defense never wants a hung jury, because the prosecution will just get another chance to have another jury trial, with a new jury, but having learned from the failure of the first trial. The defense always wants finality.
Prosecutions don't want hung juries either, because there is always the risk that the judge will either dismiss the charges (if more than half of the jury leaned toward the defense) or pressure prosecutors to offer a better plea deal to avoid wasting time on a new trial.
Usually people "too knowledgeable" get bumped from the pool
If by that you mean people who know too much about the case already, then yes, because the defendant deserves a fair trial. If you mean people who are "too knowledgeable" in general, then no, unless it's clear that they're going to take this "knowledge" and rely on that "knowledge" instead of what is presented to them in court. Lawyers generally try to exclude tech bros, because they think they know everything about criminal law based on watching a few episodes of Law & Order and CSI.
