“””I don’t think our current crop of humans can handle the task of serving on a jury.””””
True. I have been on two juries. What a bunch of clueless morons. The cardiologist sitting next to me on one was the worst. His big exposure to crime and the police was having his bicycle stole once. Wow, what a traumatic experience.
I don’t know what the answer is.
I don't either, but I do think we need to do something that takes 'maneuvering' out of the verdict.
First, I think the prosecutors and defense should be required to provide their versions of the case in writing. The jurors should be required to read all of this before the trial. The data can 'also' (not exclusively) be provided by video, and the jurors should be required to review this AND the written record. All of this should be required before the actual trial (but after jury selection).
I say this because the determination of verdict for too many trials is not based on the truth, but on what evidence and data the jury has been allowed to see. This is determined by legal maneuvering that is too often designed to conceal the truth rather than reveal it. Second, I think people on the witness stand should be allowed to say exactly what they think, not what the legal mechanics will let them say (e.g. "Object! Hearsay!). This should be true for both sides. Before the jury is sent out to deliberate they should be provided with further written (or digital) reports that delineate the parts of the testimony that are 'hearsay' or unverified, questionable, etc.
It shouldn't be that real exculpatory or incriminating evidence is blocked by attorneys. If it is questionable evidence, label it as such.