trebor@uunet.uu.net (Robert J Woodhead) (01/17/90)
damon@umbc2.umbc.edu (Damon Kelley; (RJE)) writes: > When I read the article that I got the above information from, >I was a bit shocked that the jurors were deliberately picked by the >U.S. Justice Department lawyers because didn't know *anything* about >computers. Would the jurors understand enough of the computer talk >thrown between defense and prosecutor to reach a truly informed >verdict? I'm not surprised that the jurors are technically incompetant; people who have any competence in the field at issue are regularily excluded from juries, usually by the defense though. In drug trials, the defense as a matter of course tries to go for as stupid a jury as possible as they 1) are less likely to understand why the defendant is guilty and 2) are less likely to acquit. Look at it this way; if you or I or any of the readers of this newsgroup were on the jury, our technical knowledge would give us an "advantage" over the other jurors which we could use to sway them to support our position. Juries are not totally to blame for insane verdicts and awards; part of the blame must be put on the system that tends to impanel incompetant juries. In my circle of admittedly bright and educated friends, not a single one has, to my knowledge, ever been accepted for jury duty. - -- Robert J Woodhead, Biar Games, Inc. !uunet!biar!trebor | trebor@biar.UUCP Announcing TEMPORAL EXPRESS. For only $999,999.95 (per page), your message will be carefully stored, then sent back in time as soon as technologically possible. TEMEX - when it absolutely, postively has to be there yesterday!
peggy%pyr@gatech.edu (Cris Simpson) (01/18/90)
damon@umbc2.umbc.edu (Damon Kelley; (RJE)) writes: > [...] > When I read the article that I got the above information from, >I was a bit shocked that the jurors were deliberately picked by the >U.S. Justice Department lawyers because didn't know *anything* about >computers. Would the jurors understand enough of the computer talk >thrown between defense and prosecutor to reach a truly informed >verdict? > > My mother and I discussed the issue. I said that the trial >would be unbalanced and handled badly because every little techie term >would have to be explained over and over again to the jury, slowing >down the trial process. Isn't a "jury of his peers" called for here? > [...] >Source: _The_Baltimore_Evening_Sun_, January 15, 1990. Section D, top >of page 2: "'Illiterates' Judging Computer Genius." [..] One of the most frightening experiences of my life was being called to jury duty. I got to see what a 'jury of my peers' would consist of. It gives one a lot of incentive not to get caught. (:-) IANAL, but I see a problem in the future with technology-related litigation. What good is the right to have your case tried before a jury of idiots? For example, consider Intel v. NEC or Apple v. MS & HP. It's hard enough explaining the concepts involved to a reasonably intelligent judge, but a jury picked because they didn't know anything? I suppose that if a jury of people from Washington, DC can be found who never heard of Ollie North, I suppose there's a jury for all of us... (:-) cris *IANAL: I Am Not A Lawyer. (But my wife is.)