I have not studied law myself nor been subpoenaed for jury duty, but my one of the Professors in forensic science that I'm currently studying under told a story today that is worth thinking about. He told of a colleague of his who is also a Professor in forensic science and well versed in the language and the science behind forensic evidence, and she was called in to sit as a juror for a drug case. She said that it was horrifying to serve with the other jurors, "recruited" from all kinds of professions and walks of life, because they misunderstood and misinterpreted so much of the forensic evidence put forward. The professor had to constantly school them in how to interpret the statistical evidence and not to misuse it. If she hadn't been there the outcome could have been catastrophic.
The point of the story seems to indicate to me that the juror system that many countries use today is severely flawed, it was originally instated so that we could be judged by our peers, unfortunately most of our peers are immensely unfit to make appropriate judgement based on scientific evidence. Now, you might argue that this will be less of a problem in a nation full of scientists as Asgardia might become, but it still something important to discuss.
So what am I suggesting? Either constantly have a pool of jurors that will be educated on how to interpret forensic evidence before they're but on a chair in a courtroom, or even make juror a professional profession. As it stands in many countries today, loads of professions are excluded from juror duty thus hardly making it by 'peer' anyway, so it might as well be its own profession!
I think this is incredibly important to discuss, because I know people who have been wrongfully sentenced because of the idiocy of the jurors and I for one refuse to have a justice system where I can be imprisoned for a crime I didn't commit simply because a juror didn't know better.
Peace and love