Employing laypersons as jurors in criminal adjudication is seen as an essential part of democracy in many jurisdictions. Supporters of the jury note significant benefits of citizen involvement in the criminal trial, including balancing power given to state officials and experts, and ensuring trial decisions reflect values and judgments of the community. However, contemporary literature in both law and psychology questions the ability of jurors to make accurate factual determinations in criminal cases. As knowledge of both forensic science and jury decisions increase, a potential chasm between rational verdicts that accord with science and juror verdicts is revealed, fuelled by juror misunderstandings and susceptibility to standard biases and heuristics. This reality raises the question of whether, when, and how jurors should cede their decision making prerogative in the criminal trial. In this chapter, we explore the role of the jury in the criminal trial, and potential vulnerabilities in jury decision making. We discuss research in cognitive science that has the potential to inform changes to trial procedure to improve the accuracy of jury decision making, while preserving the important benefits of lay decision making in the criminal trial.