da
...@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.)
|
