I agree with the first part: context and role. I don't see the second part (live down to expectations). As I have written before, I think people treat these things with a complex set of factors. The reason for the correlation of belief in evolution with religiosity is not at all surprising to me: the religious (Christian religious) see them as the same question: do you like/believe/trust/etc Jesus and the bible or not? Unlike the issue of a person facing jail time, which requires their analytical consideration, this question is one which essentially appeals to other facets such as loyalty, etc.
[WS:] This is a very good point, Ravi. Context is everything. However, context can be created on jury trials by lawyers who know how to manipulate such things. So if people can be fooled by a context in the context of answering poll questions, it follows that they can be fooled in a same way in different situations, including jury duty. The Scopes trial is a good case in point.
Again, my point is not that people are neglectful or frivolous while serving on jury duty, but that they have problems separating fact from fiction when their religious beliefs enter the picture - and that happens all the time, given this country inundation with religious symbolism, invocations of god, or swearing on the bible.
Wojtek