In an election, it's a secret ballot. There's no public record of who voted for whom. It's impossible to prove that insiders didn't tamper with the results. Insiders say "We're honest! We swear!" That isn't proof.
Jury pools are supposed to be random. However, insiders can't prove it.
Suppose there is a politically-motivated trial. Suppose there are 1000 or 10,000 prospective jurors that can be counted on to give the "right" verdict. On jury selection day for that trial, only the pre-biased jurors are called. This guarantees a guilty verdict.
A pro-State troll says "They don't do that!" Can you prove it? The "juror drawing" process occurs in private. You can't prove it's done honestly and randomly.
Someone pointed out an error in the way the Constitution is quoted. The Constitution does not say "jury of your peers" anywhere. It merely says "trial by jury". In practice, this means "12 jurors picked by the prosecutor". Jurors that favor the defendant tend to be filtered out by the "jury selection" process.
A true "jury of my peers" would be "12 people who know that all taxation is theft and that government is one huge criminal conspiracy". Unfortunately, less than 0.1% of the people know the truth. Even as a pro se defendant, the judge would probably bar me from explaining my viewpoint to the jury. If the jurors are hopeless pro-State trolls, then no amount of explanation will convince them.
I was surprised by this trial transcript.
Potential juror (JUROR # 4), Larry Lowder, advises the court that he attends church with the US Attorney, P.K. Holmes and has for six or seven years.Allegedly, several jurors were personal acquaintances of the prosecutor. I was shocked. The judge or defense lawyer didn't remove those jurors. Why didn't the defense lawyer strongly object?
Potential juror (JUROR # 7), Gail Chamberlain, advises court that she too attends church with the US Attorney, P.K. Holmes and that her son dined at his home three weeks earlier.
Potential juror (JUROR # 6), Janice Martin, informs the court that she and the US Attorney’s wife were cub leader and assistant cub leader to the US Attorneys’, P.K. Holmes, son within the last six (6) years or so.
Potential juror (JUROR #6), Janice Martin acknowledges that the prosecuting attorney was her son’s soccer coach.
What are the odds that multiple jurors would be personal acquaintances of the prosecutor? That's really unlikely. That made me suspect jury tampering.
Many aspects of the State are conducted in private. Statists say that secrecy is necessary. Secrecy can be used to cover up evil.
With a secret ballot, you can't prove that the election results were honestly counted. With secret "random" juror selection, you can't prove that someone didn't tamper with the jury pool. It is possible that, during a politically-motivated trial, only jurors with the "right" attitude are called.