[ArmstedFragg]

The danger with professional jurists is that they’re paid by the state and can develop a desire not to offend their employer by a not-guilty finding. There has to be a method of assuring their neutrality. One thought is to frequently have a second informal jury that serves only in an advisory capacity to answer the question, “did they get it right”? Those who exhibit clear evidence of bias can then get removed from the pool. Cases where the judge dismisses a conviction notwithstanding the evidence should count against the pro jurors too.

Anyway, in theory a pro jury can be made to work, you just have to do it thoughtfully. The two factors militating against it are that states rarely do anything thoughtfully, and that the constitution gets in the way. Maybe it’s something that could be available at the choice of the defendant.

[Mr. K]

can a judge direct a verdict in all cases?

I have heard of this only once- but I thought the judge in the OJ Simpson case should have directed a verdict of guilty and thrown the whole jury in jail for contempt of court.

Maybe they can only direct a verdict of not guilty. (I honestly don’t know)