She’s already got a bullseye on her back. Might as well serve on the jury.
I remember when I was questioned as a potential juror. One question the attorney for the party suing the city asked was, “if the evidence supports the assertion that the city was negligent in it’s maintenance of the city park, could you find in the plantiff’s favor?”
My response was “Yes.”
However, what I was thinking was, “But my bar is pretty high. If their playground was as safe as the day it was built (mid-50’s) and was considered typical, I would not consider that negligence.
And sure enough, I was the driving juror that considered an asphalt surface under an 8’ children’s slide to be fine. Rubber might have been better, but the babysitter watching the three year old should not have let him wander over to the big kids stuff while she got stoned with a friend...
i.e. How Jurors answer, and what their words actually mean, can lead to incorrect inferences on the part of the person questioning them. ;-)
The prosecution should keep her since she had confirmed that their intimidation tactics are working on her.