4 ms·

I'd settle for not actively weeding out experts as we do in the current voir dire process.

• Avenger42 10y ago
  The issue with having experts on the jury is twofold: - If they're experts in the field, they may have had enough interaction with the case in question (or the people involved in the case) to have formed an opinion without having heard any testimony - Due to their expertise, the jury could decide "it's easier (more convenient, more likely to be correct, etc) to defer to the expert" and just vote whichever way the expert votes By not having experts, everyone makes their own decisions on how to weight different pieces of evidence, and no one's opinion drowns out anyone else's (at least, any more than would have happened anyway with that particular jury).
  • seanp2k2 10y ago
    I'd like to believe that that's true, but from what I've seen, it more often turns into a battle of personalities within and without the jury. "[they] look guilty!" or just thinking a person is slimy / deserving of punishment, among the less racist reasons.
• dragonwriter 10y ago
  Eliminating (or reducing the number of) peremptory challenges might go along way to achieving this, domain expertise itself usually will not support a dismissal for cause. (Though it might be an earlier link in a chain of questioning that reveals a cause for dismissal, but that's perfectly legitimate.)