Frequent Contributor
Posts: 141
Registered: ‎03-14-2010

It is said one is judged by a jury of their peers. Can anyone answer this question? The CA jury was made up mostly of people without college education. I believe most of them had HS diplomas and one was a teacher. Are the lawyers bound to pick people who like CA only have HS diplomas to make up most of the jury? I can understand the defense going for people who are under educated they would more likely to not understand the forensics and the legal mumbo jumbo but the Prosecution knew their case was cirmucstantial and they would benefit from having more educated people on the jury who can follow a timeline and understand basic forensics. This is what I dont understand how they allowed this particular jury to be picked. the defenses whole strategy was to confuse the jurors and they did a good job of that. Confusion = reasonable doubt.