One interesting and possibly even true thing that I learned in law school is that “a jury of one’s peers” was not, originally, meant to be an impartial jury. In medieval times, the idea of rounding up a bunch of locals to decide whether or not you did a crime was that they knew you; they would be more familiar with the facts and personalities than some professional representative of the distant king; they could evaluate your testimony and use their own contextual knowledge to figure out what happened. And so if you were notorious throughout your shire as a bad guy, and you were accused of something bad, the jury of local notables might figure you’re a bad guy so you probably did it, and that was entirely allowed and kind of the point.

Money Stuff: Crypto Banks Owe Themselves Money
from Matt Levine ✉️