Depends upon the moral character of the jurists. I, for one, would not vote to convict a political enemy of mine, if I thought the trial was in any way compromised.
Why be a part of a big lie, which will be exposed on appeal? Go on record now, as being an impartial American, and be able to live with your decision.
You are obviously better than most in the jury pools. No surprise as you are part of our forum.
IMO most jurors are ignorant, and/or stupid, and biased.
Example: A juror replaced by an alternate during the OJ trial (I know, easy target for me). A woman had sat through three days of detailed scientific explanations specifically about the extremely low probability of the OJ dna found at the crime scene not linking OJ to the murders. 9.7 billion to one for one item.* And Nicole’s blood on OJ’s sock.
She said to reporters: “They didn’t show me nothing. There are lots of people walking around that have the same blood types.”
How can anyone accept our degenerate, devolved, worthless system of pseudo justice after that?
I am not guilty of that.
*Over nine weeks of testimony, 108 exhibits of DNA evidence, including 61 drops of blood, were presented at trial. Testing was cross-referenced and validated at three separate labs using different tests with no discrepancies found.