Can we assume that's sarcasm? There are most definitely some informed jurors on this side of the pond, and we have a LOT more rights than most judges or Prosecuting Attorneys or DAs or ADAs want us to know about. Our duty is to uphold the law, but in many cases, the law is contradictory, loaded with politicized terminology or simply shouldn't apply to ALL circumstances. It is our duty as American Citizens to base any verdict on the law, the evidence and the situation, including common sense. I've even read where laws were essentially nullified/ignored by the jury. There's plenty to read on this and trust me when I say that there are a lot of folks who don't want juries to be informed.

Part of the problem of our system is that every marginally intelligent potential juror sees avoiding jury duty as the real "duty". They need to pay a reasonable wage for jurors and pass laws to insure that companies of a certain size must continue salaries to those involved in long trials. For smaller companies, a nationwide "jury employment insurance" of some sort would go a long way toward putting more people on the stand than government workers.

And the process is meant to streamline everything to make the DA's job simpler... why inform jurors of ALL the rights they have when you can tell them about the ones the DA cares about?