But today I was the first one booted off.
It could have been because I think I contributed to an election campaign for one of the defense lawyers, or because I pointed out how fallible human memory and perception is and that I have little hope of telling if someone's lying, or I mentioned they already exposed us to bias by letting us see everyone at the council table. Or perhaps it was just because I was annoying in the way that only someone exposed to far to much philosophy can be.
Though why do they let the jury see the lawyers and defense? Since it's been shown that just changing the names on essays influences the grades those essay receives how can seeing them not bias us?
Not to mention, why are lawyers allowed opening and closing statements? Those are persuasive arguments that almost certainly take advantage of a number of rhetorical tricks to manipulate jurors memories of the presented evidence.
We tend to believe we're less biased than we actually are. We tend to believe what's repeated to us, we tend to believe what supports our previously held beliefs, we will tend to believe our first choice. Also our justifications for our beliefs are sometimes totally fabricated after we've already decided. (as shown here.)
I suppose because I'm aware of at least some of the common fallacies I'm more likely to be able to resist them, but if I assume that not subject to the fallacies I'm almost certainly opening myself to being tricked.