I did enjoy it and I actually enjoy serving on juries which hasn't been that many times. The most interesting case that I did serve on was one that two teenage boys were accused of kidnapping with intent to commit sexual assault. That case involved all Hispanic speaking "parties" the two boys, the "alleged" victim who was a 23 year old female and scores of witnesses.
The only person who testified in English was the cop who stopped the boys for a traffic citation. All the rest of the testimony, and questions asked of the witnesses had to be translated. The trial ended up taking a full week to complete but if it had been in "English only" it might have taken 2 or 2.5 days.

I felt really good about the outcome in that case as we found the two not guilty of the charges when our initial vote was 3 not guilty and 9 guilty. It was surprising to me just how many people on the jury really paid no attention to the case and the facts. Only me and two ladies believed they were innocent to begin with but when us three started discussing the facts the others would say stuff like, "I didn't hear that" or "that's not what I recall hearing". So we would have to get the bailiff to get the transcript and we would go over it.
Serving on a jury is looked at by people as an inconvenience but the reality is that when you are on a jury your vote means something unlike voting in an election. Bad law can actually be reversed by juries if people would take the time to educate themselves. As a juror you have the right to not only try the facts of the case but the law too. If a jury decides that the law is wrong they can find the defendant not guilty. Most judges won't ever tell the jury that in their "instructions" to the jury but it is the truth.
Judges aren't interested in justice, only thing they care about is how much revenue they can generate from court costs and fines.