Now you are making blind accusations and grasping at straws. The jurors didn't see all the evidence presented? That is their entire purpose. And if the jury system is so bad, what is more just?

Now u should know better than that. There are plenty of cases where most of the evidence don't reach the court rooms. When I come up with one ill be sure to post. It.

Read your previous statement again. You said juries don't see all the evidence presented. And if the evidence is obtained illegally and in a manner that violates the Constitution, should it be allowed?

Evidence not presented at trial:
At the June 1994 grand jury hearing, Ross Cutlery provided store receipts indicating that Simpson had purchased a 12-inch (305 mm) stiletto knife six weeks before the murders. The knife was determined to be similar to the one the coroner said caused the stab wounds.[5] The prosecution did not present this evidence at trial after discovering that store employees had sold their story to The National Enquirer for $12,500.[5] The knife was later collected from Simpson's residence by his attorneys who presented it to Judge Ito and subsequently was sealed in a manila envelope to be opened only if brought up at trial. It turned out not to be the murder weapon because tests on the knife determined that an oil used on new cutlery was still present on the knife indicating the knife had never been used. The police "searched" OJ's Rockingham estate 3 times and couldn't find this knife. OJ told the attorneys exactly where it was in the house and it was promptly recovered.[48]
Jill Shively testified to the 1994 grand jury that she saw a white Ford Bronco speeding away from Bundy Drive, in such a hurry that it almost collided with another car at an intersection.[5] She talked to the television show Hard Copy for $5,000, after which prosecutors declined to use her testimony at trial.[5]
A women's shelter, Sojourn, received a call from Nicole Brown four days prior to the murders saying that she was scared of her ex-husband, whom she believed was stalking her.[5] The prosecution did not present this in court because they thought that Judge Ito would rule the evidence to be hearsay.[5] In addition, friends and family indicated that Nicole Brown had consistently said that Simpson had been stalking her.[5] She claimed that everywhere she went, she noticed Simpson would be there, watching her. Her friends Faye Resnick and Cynthia Shahian said she was afraid because Simpson had told her he would kill her if he ever found her with another man.[5]
Former NFL player and pastor Rosey Grier visited Simpson at the Los Angeles County Jail in the days following the murders. A jailhouse guard, Jeff Stuart, testified to Judge Ito that at one point Simpson yelled to Grier that he "didn't mean to do it", after which Grier had urged Simpson to come clean.[5] Ito ruled that the evidence was hearsay and could not be allowed in court.[5]
A few months before the murders in 1994, Simpson completed a film pilot for Frogmen, an adventure series which he starred in. Although the prosecution investigated reports that Simpson, who played the leader of a group of former United States Navy SEALs, received "a fair amount of" military training—including use of a knife—for Frogmen, and there is a scene in which he holds a knife to the throat of a woman, it was not introduced as evidence during the trial.[49]

That's all fine and good, but that's an argument for better handling of the evidence and making sure it is obtained within the Constitution. You still won't present an alternative. Why not?

@Maddog: because at this time I don't have any clear cut alternative to give or speak of,but maybe giving some time I will. To be honest I'm just going off what I see,hear,and feel. It doesn't make me right or wrong. Lol! Hope I'm using clear cut correctly in a sentence. If not I apologize.

So just scrap what has worked for 230 years, with much more success than failure because a perfect system is impossible?

Trial by jury is considered by many (myself included) to be the cornerstone of a democratic society...There are a couple of valid reason why this method is sometimes questioned and undermined and both are related to the selection process...BUT!!.... Not because jurors are randomly selected as stated in your opening post...It's because jurors represent a random selection of society...Two very different concepts!...A random selection of society means things like professional, non professional, white, black, Latino, Asian, male, female, etc...This means juries can, and often do, consist of people who may or may not understand legal concepts and complex cases...They can consist of people who are often called upon to answer questions which are outside their knowledge or experience...One alternative could be the use of professional jurors trained to adequately understand legal concepts...Another alternative could be the use of tribunals that consist of state trained and appointed representatives...But think about it SimplyMe, both these alternatives WOULD NOT have independence from the state or the judiciary and they WOULD NOT represent a cross-section of society...This would cause a far greater problem than the one you are biotching about because both of these alternatives would sacrifice the very thing that makes trial by jury superior to any other method and that is IMPARTIALITY...I rest my case....

@ Maddog:I'm not saying all that,I'm just saying it needs a bit off makeover. For a lack of a better word. whether it happens today,tomorrow,or years from now. It wont happen if we just accept what is. It's up to us citizens and the government to make those changes.

What changes?

So we need to get rid of juries because we disagree with a few verdicts, but when confronted with why we have juries, we need to tweak the system to make it give us the results we want? Let's just scrap the whole Constitution. Well, except the parts I like. But the parts you like we can get rid of. I can't take you seriously unless you can offer a viable alternative.

I wasn't referring to what u were sayn Leigh,more to what mad dog asked me.

For every example of a jury getting it wrong, there are thousands of juries who got it right. That's a pretty good record.

Oh....Well how about referring to it ...I'm curious as to what you think....

To you Leigh no matter how u want to spin it,it is still a bunch of random civilian selected to make a decision in court. If I'm to accept what your saying,then that mean I'm able to be a jury in a court case, just by being a citizen,a registered voter,and the mere fact that I was selected solely on the premise that I am not begin biase towards any one race,gender,ect. And that I may or may not be able to understand legal concept and complex cases. Which I think proves my point. I'm still a random civilian call to do a job. Btw its like sayn orange juice isn't good for you because it's not in its original former state. Really? But Like I said let's just agree to disagree.

But you still won't accept that juries get thousands of trials right for every one they get wrong. Why do we need a total overhaul? Because you disagree with a couple verdicts from recent years?

@Maddog no we don't need a total overhaul. Also I think you got your estimate wrong.

Wilson’s case was heard in state court, not federal, so the numbers aren’t directly comparable. Unlike in federal court, most states, including Missouri, allow prosecutors to bring charges via a preliminary hearing in front of a judge instead of through a grand jury indictment. That means many routine cases never go before a grand jury. Still, legal experts agree that, at any level, it is extremely rare for prosecutors to fail to win an indictment.

“If the prosecutor wants an indictment and doesn’t get one, something has gone horribly wrong,” said Andrew D. Leipold, a University of Illinois law professor who has written critically about grand juries. “It just doesn’t happen.”

Cases involving police shootings, however, appear to be an exception. As my colleague Reuben Fischer-Baum has written, we don’t have good data on officer-involved killings. But newspaper accounts suggest, grand juries frequently decline to indict law-enforcement officials. A recent Houston Chronicle investigation found that “police have been nearly immune from criminal charges in shootings” in Houston and other large cities in recent years. In Harris County, Texas, for example, grand juries haven’t indicted a Houston police officer since 2004; in Dallas, grand juries reviewed 81 shootings between 2008 and 2012 and returned just one indictment. Separate research by Bowling Green State University criminologist Philip Stinson has found that officers are rarely charged in on-duty killings, although it didn’t look at grand jury indictments specifically.

>>>>There are at least three possible explanations as to why grand juries are so much less likely to indict police officers. (The first is juror bias): Perhaps jurors tend to trust police officer and believe their decisions to use violence are justified, even when the evidence says otherwise. The (second is prosecutorial bias): Perhaps prosecutors, who depend on police as they work on criminal cases, tend to present a less compelling case against officers, whether consciously or unconsciously.

(The third possible explanation) is more benign. Ordinarily, prosecutors only bring a case if they think they can get an indictment. But in high-profile cases such as police shootings, they may feel public pressure to bring charges even if they think they have a weak case.

“The prosecutor in this case didn’t really have a choice about whether he would bring this to a grand jury,” Ben Trachtenberg, a University of Missouri law professor, said of the Brown case. “It’s almost impossible to imagine a prosecutor saying the evidence is so scanty that I’m not even going to bring this before a grand jury.”

The explanations aren’t mutually exclusive. It’s possible, for example, that the evidence against Wilson was relatively weak, but that jurors were also more likely than normal to give him the benefit of the doubt. St. Louis County prosecutor Robert McCulloch has said he plans to release the evidence collected in the case, which would give the public a chance to evaluate whether justice was served here. But beyond Ferguson, we won’t know without better data why grand juries are so reluctant to indict police officers.

You're conflating juries, which hear trials, with grand juries, which determine if a case has enough evidence to go to trial. Additionally, you are focused on only high profile cases. What about that check fraud case in Boise, Idaho? Did the jury get that one right?

Darren Wilson was not convicted because he was not indicted. He was not indicted because the grand jury saw evidence that you didn't. They heard from dozens of witnesses, including every eye witness, all but one of whom said Mike Brown attacked Wilson and attempted to take his gun. We also know that Brown assaulted a man and robbed a store minutes before the altercation. Even the Federal Department of Justice, headed by Eric Holder, who sided against the police before anything other than a young black male was killed by the police was known, was unable to find sufficient evidence to bring federal charges.

Ignoring facts that don't fit your opinion doesn't make them less true, and diminishes your credibility.