You're answering a different question--a demographic one.
Megyn Kelly, noted analyst (*snort!*), was taking on a legal issue--whether the facts as presented and the judge's admonitions, desires, and dreams limit what a jury can conclude about the case and its witnesses. The answer is no.
A jury can throw out all the assertions of lawyers, witnesses, and the law itself and just go with their gut, if enough of them agree. The downside is that if they're poorly or dishonestly chosen or administered by counsel and the judge, they can be just biased, unscrupulous dummies making sh*t up.
Ya mean like the OJ jury?