Censored Trials by Jury

"Isn't it true that you MURDERED the defendant?"
"--Objection, Your Honor"
"Objection sustained. The jury will disregard that question".

Fair enough, except it must be very difficult for juries to actually do that. Attorneys know this, so they purposefully say controversial things like this and then say "Question withdrawn", knowing that they have still made some impact on the jury.

I propose that juries need not be present in the actual courtroom during a trial. It's wasteful. I was on a jury for 7 full days and only about 16 hours were actually "the trial". The rest was recesses, lunch, waiting for the other parties to get there, etc. I got lots of reading done but what about people who have to work?

Instead, the judge should hold the trial himself and review and delete all the controversial parts, and the jurors come together at a later date to watch the video in high-definition, with individual cameras pointing to all the relevant parties (defendant; plaintiff; witness).

This way, the jury can watch the whole trial more quickly and be presented with "Just the facts". They can also instantly rewind anything they didn't hear clearly the first time.

Thank you.