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

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).