> This is a very common argument against juries, and I think it's one of the most powerful. Of course if you start to fill a jury with people competent in the

> This is a very common argument against juries, and I think it's one of the most powerful. Of course if you start to fill a jury with people competent in the area being judged, you run different risks, such as bias within the field. And it's still not clear that it would help with delivering justice. True but at the same time nothing says its all or nothing. I really think there is an argument for cases like this to have ~4 people with degrees relevant to the case sitting on the jury which is likely enough to swing the jury's results if there is something that just wasn't communicated effectively or the issue being clouded by one party. Sure there might be bias in that case, but I don't think its particularly pronounced when a civil suit is ultimately decided by a majority.