[atacrawl]

Any time this topic comes up, I think immediately of the Louise Woodward case (aka the British Nanny Case): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Woodward_case

During the trial, much was made of Louise Woodward's odd demeanor on the stand; particularly, her propensity to awkwardly twist her mouth to stifle laughter during testimony. Many interpreted that as a sign of guilt, but my grandmother would laugh in a similar fashion whenever she was nervous or uncomfortable. Woodward struck me as genuine.

On the other hand, at the end of the trial, the baby's mother read a statement to the court. Her delivery was cold, emotionless and oddly stable given the circumstances. It was unnerving, and I've never forgotten it.

[arbitrage]

Which is why it's a good thing that people are supposed to be judged based on facts, and not their popularity.

[mynameishere]

The one time I was on a jury the judge specifically instructed the jurors to use our judgement in determining the credibility of anyone testifying. I don't think there's any way around it--everyone knows that perjury is a given on one side or the other.

[Joeri]

Jurors are still people, emotional judgements will get involved one way or the other.

The fact that jury trials are driven by emotion instead of fact was driven home for me by the parachute murder trial, where there was only circumstantial evidence, yet a 30 year conviction was achieved mostly based on the odd demeanor of the accused: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parachute_Murder

[goldenkey]

Popularity is different from oddness.