I know that jury duty is an obligation we have to our society but if you feel very strongly about moral issues and you're not afraid to speak your mind even at the risk of being politically/socially incorrect then you're probably not going to be selected for jury duty. If I were screened for jury duty in a trial like this one I would answer any question honestly and passionately. I have a feeling that my personal opinions on certain issues would get me disqualified in a heartbeat.
It depends. I did that and not only was selected for a criminal trial, I ended up as the foreman.
Criminal jury trials are outdated. Jurors are typically those who want to serve, as those with any excuse are let go. Let a panel of three Judges hear all trials. Judges are less swayed by defense BS theories. All testimony is heard - period. The Judges will then decide what is relevant. No longer is anything kept out of the trial.
I disagree with this in the strongest possible terms.
The state has practically unlimited resources to find evidence, interview potential witnesses, and explore legal theories. One of the more important reasons that we require a jury of the defendants peers to find him or her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is to somewhat offset this enormous imbalance of power.
"Not Proven" needs to be imported to the US.
"Not Proven" became part of Scottish law in 1728, so we can take it as given that the Founding Fathers were aware of it. They chose a system that is designed to protect individuals from mistakes and abuse of state power. Frankly, I think "Not Proven" is a cop-out. If you can't prove your case, you shouldn't have brought it, and the defendant shouldn't have to face it all over again.
That is a very black or white viewpoint of reality and potentially lessens the evidential standards for a conviction, even it could be argued to the detriment of the accused as lower standards for a conviction may result as it doesn't allow for the grey area between the black and white, which can be caused by purely circumstantial evidence brought to the trial by the prosecutor.
It was designed this way on purpose. Most criminal justice systems are designed to protect the state. Ours was designed to protect the individual.
In the criminal case where I was foreman, we were morally certain that the defendant committed the acts he was accused of, but we found him not guilty. The state failed to prove their case adequately. I'm entirely comfortable with that decision. No do-overs.
The rest: The US justice system has a third verdict besides "guilty" and "not guilty". It's called "factually innocent", and the criteria seems to be that not only is there a reasonable doubt that you committed the crime, but it is beyond a reasonable doubt the you did not contribute to it.
"Factual innocence" is not a verdict. The only verdicts in US criminal trials are "guilty," "not guilty," and in some jurisdictions there is "not guilty by reason of insanity" and "guilty but insane". A hung jury has failed to reach a verdict. "Factual innocence" can be found by a court after a verdict of not guilty. In some jurisdictions one can petition for such a finding in order to clear or offset a record of arrest.
NB: I'm not a lawyer, and nothing I write anywhere should be construed as legal advice.