Statistically speaking: if 17% of people say that the murder of the healthcare CEO is even somewhat acceptable, if you were to pick 12 people randomly from that group (so not accounting for any other potential filters from a jury questionnaire), you’d only have a 10% chance that all 12 answering it is unacceptable.
That’s not how jury selection works, though. They find people, filter some out, bring in the alternates, filter them out, and repeat until they have 12 they’re happy with.
They will try, but people will answer that murder is not acceptable and then find not guilty later anyway. And they can potentially do that truthfully. If they find small issues with the evidence, they can go with not guilty.
Statistically speaking: if 17% of people say that the murder of the healthcare CEO is even somewhat acceptable, if you were to pick 12 people randomly from that group (so not accounting for any other potential filters from a jury questionnaire), you’d only have a 10% chance that all 12 answering it is unacceptable.
That’s not how jury selection works, though. They find people, filter some out, bring in the alternates, filter them out, and repeat until they have 12 they’re happy with.
They will try, but people will answer that murder is not acceptable and then find not guilty later anyway. And they can potentially do that truthfully. If they find small issues with the evidence, they can go with not guilty.