Having recently sat on a Jury in the UK, deliberating on a triple assault case, the CCTV was the most crucial piece of evidence - eye witness reports were patchy and in some cases contradictory, and watching the events on CCTV was important in deciding what actually happened. If we had not had access to the CCTV - both in real time and slowed down (which was actually produced by the defence, not the prosecution), the…
My view is that the aim of a using juries is to bring the things humans are good at* to the judgment process, i.e. deciding who's lying under cross-examination. Humans might be good at detecting 'intent' in the real world and calibrated for reality. Their calibration might be completely wrong for slow-motion. So maybe slow-mo does give a better view of what happened to establish the facts of the matter but may drasti…
A judge may know the law more precisely than a layperson, but is no less fallible. But they are of the system.
Juries work remarkably well on that basis. That's not to say they're likely to be better at deciding truth, guilt or innocence. They'll undoubtedly bring some of their prejudices in from the street.
Juries have the ability to acquit a defendant despite the evidence and facts (jury nullification), which is very rarely if ever pointed out to juries. Only case I can think of was Clive Ponting, a UK civil servant, prosecuted for leaking Falklands war documents. He claimed to have done so in the public interest. The governement position was public interest is whatever we think it is. The judge directed them to convict. The jury acquitted. The govt was not happy. They later changed the Official Secrets Act such that this defence was no longer possible and since then public interest is now whatever the UK Govt says it is.