Presumption of Innocence: Impossible

There is no way to guarantee that jurors hold an unbiased approach to the trial at hand. While sitting upon the jury box, one is prone to applying their own morals and ethics to the case, and in doing so, they judge not according to the rules of law but to their own rules. This is discussed in greater depth in regards to tort reform in The Power of the Value-Driven Bias. In these cases, which are often civil, the jury is forced to decide whether a wrongful act which did not break any contract entitles the prosecutor to some sort of compensation. For instance, the bride from New York who recently sued her florist for providing flowers which were not the right hue. In a case such as this, it is impossible to judge the case without bringing your own views into the picture—the nature of a case like this, in which restitution is decided, even asks for the juror to judge according to his or her morals, which always shape a biased inclination of some sort. In many court cases, this goes to show, the jurors of the court are forced to judge taking into account their personal bias, and this is inconsistent with the right to an unbiased jury.

Even the slightest presupposed judgment by jurors, which is often created after seeing and profiling a person (or defendant), leads to large problems. Confirmation Bias happens after one makes an assumption; it is looking at evidence only in the way which fits your assumption and disregarding other evidence. In the case of the Robin Hood Woods murders, the jurors and judge obviously hold a confirmation bias because bite marks on the victims did not match any of the defendant’s own dental impression. Juror selection, the goal seemingly to select unbiased jurors, even goes so far as to use bias in their favor. Just look at Consultant Hirschhorn’s comment:

"If there's somebody I'm on the fence about and I think a couple of the other jurors will bond with and bring that person along, I'll keep him on…I look for whether it's an intellectual relationship, whether they have common interests, common goals, common life experiences."

It is impossible to guarantee a jury without bias—pyschologists say that evidence agrees. Impartiality needs to be examined by officials outside of the juror box do determine whether the case has evoked too much personal bias and is therefore unlawful.