one thing about the voir dire (questioning of potential jurors) process that intrigued me was the hypothetical scenario raised of being the one juror who didn't agree with the eleven others. the reaction the judge and lawyers were looking for, of course, is that the potential juror would not be swayed by the majority, only the facts in evidence. i think it would be more interesting to ask people how they would behave in the flipside -- what if you're in the majority? would you listen to that lone (or minority) voice and allow yourself to be convinced that their view of the evidence is correct, or would you just assume you must be right because most people agree with you?