I have thoughts that support and oppose both the current system and the lawyer-only option but I'd ramble into incoherent babble if I listed them all here.
The title is the post so how/why do you feel one way or the other about layman juries vs lawyer-only juries?
My state doesn't allow non-lawyer corporate representatives to represent the corporation in court.
If a corporation is sued and can't find an attorney to take the case (for whatever reason(s)), does it just end in a default judgement for the plaintiff? Contempt until counsel is retained by the corporation?
Is the swearing in of K9 officers purely ceremonial/PR-related or is it required in order to later enhance charges or modify sentences because the offense is against a police officer?
The only guardrails on the twist are that the jury must be unanimous to veto a TC vote, the announcement is made after the votes are read, and it must be exercised at or before the F5 TC.
Some things I've considered:
Does it just become a non-elim or is there a revote?
Can the tribe override the veto with x-out-of-y votes in a veto-vote?
Would it be a known or unknown twist to the remaining contestants?
Would Jeff ask the jury before snuffing at every TC similar to the way he does for idols prior to the vote?
Should it cost the jury anything to veto?
Just trying to have some off-season boredom buster discourse.
What constitutional/legal doctrine justifies pre-trial detention in an "innocent unless proven guilty" system?
In a similar vein, when/why/how did the "not guilty doesn't mean innocent" philosophy develop in the same "innocent unless proven guilty" system?