The US justice systems != all jury systems. I&#x27;ve experienced the justice system in both England and Scotland (they&#x27;re different!), from the Scottish perspective as a police officer and the English one as a member of a jury on two cases.<p>In both instances the lawyers who practice, especially in more serious cases, need &quot;a right of audience&quot; - that is they are either an English barrister&#x2F;Scottish advocate or a solicitor who has undergone additional training. For a case like a murder trial both sides will have solicitors who appoint experienced counsel to actually make the argument in court. This is the key that the American system doesn&#x27;t have - those counsel almost always act for both defence and prosecution - they are not professional prosecutors or defenders. Some specialise in one direction or the other, but they avoid the tribalism and chasing of conviction rates. There is the equivalent of the DA, that is the senior state lawyers who rarely actually appear in court, but they come up through the tradition of the independent bar.<p>What that leads to is a prosecution and defence that both tend towards the interest of justice. Given that you end up with the professionals all striving to test the burden of proof, not grandstanding - which leads to a more harmonious jury experience. Many of my friends from university became lawyers, some of the brightest minds in the country practice at the criminal bar and conduct &quot;legal aid&quot; defences - i.e. act as public defenders. It is the equivalent of the defence attorney in the article&#x27;s case being a Harvard Law graduate.<p>No legal system is perfect, many are starved of funds, every one has had prominent scandals over the years. I would submit that the jury system is still a valuable check and balance and works remarkable well when combined with an independent, professional, bar which avoids perverse incentives.