English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Our views of the jury are ambivalent. Defense attorneys, prosecutors, and judges typically proclaim their awe of the wisdom of the jury. They report that although jurors may not always master the technicalities of a case, they have an uncanny ability to grasp the truth and to provide common sense justice.2 On occasion, however, particularly when the practitioners speak of plea bargaining, their remarks about juries have a different tone. They report that submitting a case to a jury is very much like rolling dice. As sensitive and sophisticated professionals, these lawyers must avoid the dangers of trial. Even a "bad" plea agreement is likely to seem better than allowing a case to reach a jury-something that the lawyers describe as a plunge from an unknown height.3 The mixture of praise and mistrust that these prac-

The Supreme Court and the Jury: Voir Dire, Peremptory Challenges, and the Review of Jury Verdicts