The judge has to ensure a guilty verdict. Any attempt to get to the truth must be severely dealt with.
I have been called dozens of times to jury service. I always get out of it because in voir dire I tell the truth. When asked if I will follow the instructions of the judge, I say that it depends on what they are. I then give an example or two of situations like this where I would be told to ignore relevant information because the court is trying to keep the truth from the jury.
As a result of my truthful statements I invariably get excused for cause.
The truth is irrelevant in criminal trials. Juries are kept in the dark so they aren’t informed of the truth. It’s systemic.
That takes a bit of sand, my brother. But, basically you're saying that you hold the truth higher than the orders of the judge. Do I have that right?
In general I agree with you.
There are some cases, one of which I know of in particular, where the accused was innocent and "evidence" of his guilt was withheld from the jury.
The so-called evidence was a video of one person's interview with another person. No oath, nothing to substantiate the truth of what was said.
The prosecutor kept referring to the video as though it was proof of something even though it was rightfully not allowed in court.
The guy was found not guilty. Basically what I'm saying is that the system works sometimes.
Take a look at the new Tuesday CBS show "Bull" it is all about jury scientific selection process that only the rich can afford.