As I noted at the conclusion of the Lay-Skilling trial, my sense is that the trial was over before it began because the jurors — particularly its leaders — were predisposed to convict.

Now, according to this Brenda Sandburg/American Lawyer article, the jury consultants working the Lay-Skilling case thought the same thing. In fact, they gave little hope that any jury anywhere could be empaneled that would view the case without a strong predisposition to convict.

Remember that the next time you read and hear the prosecution in a criminal case undertaking a propaganda campaign to fan the flames of resentment and scapegoating in the jury pool.

As Sir Thomas More reminds us, do any of us really think that we could “stand upright in the winds that would blow” if that power were applied to us?