I have been called up a few times but only selected once. It was a minor crime, the trial was over in a few hours, and the members of the jury seemed to take the case more seriously than any of the other participants. The prosecutor was young and inexperienced, the defense attorney obviously expected his client to lose, the defendant was already behind bars for some other reason and didn't seem to mind staying there, the judge looked tired, and the cop whose testimony was the sole evidence in the case seemed annoyed about having to be present.<p>Members of the jury, however, paid close attention, listened carefully, considered the evidence thoroughly, deliberated at length, and... failed to reach a verdict. The prosecution's case boiled down to "this here cop believes that there man did the crime", and the varying opinions people have about the trustworthiness of such evidence seems largely to be a function of life experience, not easily reconciled.