The only time I've been called for jury duty, they asked us various filtering questions (voir dire), one of which was "would we be able to make a decision based

The only time I've been called for jury duty, they asked us various filtering questions (voir dire), one of which was "would we be able to make a decision based solely on the law itself and not circumstances or other factors?" (roughly) I didn't answer an emphatic Yes like everyone else. When the judge asked if I was talking about jury nullification, I said not as a policy and I wouldn't do so lightly, but that I can't pretend my choices don't have consequences. Shortly thereafter I was dismissed at the request of the prosecution. I was fine with being excluded, but I was horrified by the apparent difficulty most of the others had in answering basic logic questions. They asked questions like "if a legal restraining order says 'stay 1000 feet away', is someone who gets 990 feet away breaking the law?" and "what if they were doing so to help someone in danger, were they breaking the law?". Not only were people NOT applying only the (hypothetical) law, they were struggling to understand that that was what was happening. One of friends who is a lawyer says that, guilty or innocent, if ever on trial he would never choose a jury trial. Until my experience I didn't understand why.