Michael Ian Black. Never heard of him, maybe you have, not me:
Could I set aside my own somewhat biased (I hate him) feelings regarding the defendant to ensure that he gets a fair trial?
Me too.
...my understanding of the job of “juror” isn’t to sit in judgment of the person, only the acts which that person is accused of having performed. I could do that.
Me too.
...
All you gotta do is show me the law in question, and let me figure out whether he broke it. My personal animus towards the defendant is irrelevant.
Easy.
Black is 75% right. The missing 25% makes it easier. The job of juror, understood 100% is to judge the prosecution's evidence. Weigh it, that's the language of the law. Weigh the evidence. Does it meet the weight limit of beyond a reasonable doubt? I used that law with a metaphor when I was picking juries in criminal trials. It's like Olympic weightlifting. It's not a contest between two big strong fat guys. There are consequences, to be sure, for winner and loser, but the contest is against a standard. Can you lift 400 lbs or whatever the standard is? Can you lift it above your head and then hold it there for a second without "wavering or vacillating". That also is from the law. A reasonable doubt does not waver or vacillate. It's stable. In a criminal trial the "burden" of proof rests solely on the shoulders of the prosecution. The defense, as we routinely say, doesn't have to do anything. We can sit there and read the newspaper. Glance up every so often and see if he's lifting it, argue in closings that he didn't lift it completely over his head or didn't hold it there stably, "You saw him, his arms were shaking and his legs quivering." Easy.
