> The whole idea of "being judged by your peers" is lovely on paper but cases like this show how stupid this is.
It's part of the system of checks and balances. If there isn't at least a plausible case for conviction, the case shouldn't even make it to a jury. The judge is permitted to throw it out for insufficient evidence.
In principle what's supposed to happen is that it prevents a conviction if the prosecution can't convince 12 random people that there should be one. The problem is prosecutors have the full time job of trying to convict people, and one of the ways they do it is by trying to change the system to make that easier. So then convicts get excluded from juries along with anyone else the prosecution thinks might be sympathetic to the defense -- even though having to convince someone initially sympathetic to the defense is supposed to be the point.
It's part of the system of checks and balances. If there isn't at least a plausible case for conviction, the case shouldn't even make it to a jury. The judge is permitted to throw it out for insufficient evidence.
In principle what's supposed to happen is that it prevents a conviction if the prosecution can't convince 12 random people that there should be one. The problem is prosecutors have the full time job of trying to convict people, and one of the ways they do it is by trying to change the system to make that easier. So then convicts get excluded from juries along with anyone else the prosecution thinks might be sympathetic to the defense -- even though having to convince someone initially sympathetic to the defense is supposed to be the point.