[ Under construction ]
I was thinking of some measures that might possibly help juries to reach correct decisions in complex cases.
One aspect that I believe is unfair is the prosecution may never actually ever disclose it’s theory ( or theories ), possibly introducing a new theory after the defence have concluded their closing argument.
And then perhaps to help the jury, there could be a collection of facts that are not in dispute, clearly laid out to help them understand the evidence.
Why do juries sometimes go so badly wrong? I think it certainly is related to emotional arguments.
[ Need to talk about the scientific method, and how you must form a hypothesis before testing it ]