I'm not going to try and defend my take; i acknowledge it's a shitty one, and I'll own it. My original comment was poorly worded, though, when it comes to my stance. "I'm not trying to argue that this is a good or fair way to think. I'm just trying to clarify what I meant in my original comment.

My baseline is that they're likely guilty, not that I blindly believe they're guilty simply for being in a court room. I'm suspicious by nature, and the fact that you're being tried (and that they have enough evidence to bring you to court) doesn't lend itself to me believing your innocence. This clearly conflicts with the innocent until proven guilty concept, which makes me a poor juror to select.

I also take a lot of stock in evidence - which by its nature points to someone having done a given action. Not necessarily the person on trial, however. My point is that it's easier to prove a positive than it is to prove a negative (i.e., innocence).

So it's more of: I think you probably did this, and I believe what I can see and measure (and those things frequently point to guilty) than you're guilty before you even take the stand.

If they have good evidence, like CCTV photo or something putting the accused far away from the crime, obviously my stance would change. What I was trying to [poorly] get at in my first comment is my suspicious nature. That pre-disposition makes a bad juror to select. That nature may not be fair, and it's a character flaw, certainly.