Juries

[puppydog85]

NPR had this piece about the Samsung v Apple (go Apple! sue them out of existence! Make more money!) case and how the lawyers have to basically ignore the actual patent arguments and try to "paint a story" because the jury was basically too ignorant to understand the deeper stuff.

Sooooo,

Why do we juries made from random joes who don't understand what's being talked about? (history lesson please)

What is wrong with having professional juries, made up of people who actually know what is being talked about? (ethics/legal lesson please)

And finally, why am I posting this here instead of going to someplace that has a recognized amount of learning in the matter?

[Haggis_McMutton]

I foresee patriotic eagle pictures in this thread's future.

[KoolBak]

Loading juries historically gets the case thrown out by the losing party....lol. Messed up system but the one we got.

[puppydog85]

loading juries?

[Phatscotty]

NPR had this piece about the Samsung v Apple (go Apple! sue them out of existence! Make more money!) case and how the lawyers have to basically ignore the actual patent arguments and try to "paint a story" because the jury was basically too ignorant to understand the deeper stuff.

Sooooo,

Why do we juries made from random joes who don't understand what's being talked about? (history lesson please)

What is wrong with having professional juries, made up of people who actually know what is being talked about? (ethics/legal lesson please)

And finally, why am I posting this here instead of going to someplace that has a recognized amount of learning in the matter?

This is actually a rich place for intelligent discussion, you just need to be able to handle all the drama and wade through the bullshit.

I think it's up to the lawyers and the courts to educate the jury and hold their hand all the way through the process, to the best of their ability. It's important to have regular Joe's in the jury, kind of in the same way we should have more regular Joe's in Washington DC.

It's too easy for professionals to lose touch with the mainstream.

[Woodruff]

NPR had this piece about the Samsung v Apple (go Apple! sue them out of existence! Make more money!) case and how the lawyers have to basically ignore the actual patent arguments and try to "paint a story" because the jury was basically too ignorant to understand the deeper stuff.

Sooooo,

Why do we juries made from random joes who don't understand what's being talked about? (history lesson please)

What is wrong with having professional juries, made up of people who actually know what is being talked about? (ethics/legal lesson please)

And finally, why am I posting this here instead of going to someplace that has a recognized amount of learning in the matter?

This is actually a rich place for intelligent discussion, you just need to be able to handle all the drama and wade through the bullshit.

I think it's up to the lawyers and the courts to educate the jury and hold their hand all the way through the process, to the best of their ability. It's important to have regular Joe's in the jury, kind of in the same way we should have more regular Joe's in Washington DC.

It's too easy for professionals to lose touch with the mainstream.

I agree with Phatscotty completely in this. The "regular joe" isn't incapable of understanding, they simply don't have the background to understand (usually).

[BigBallinStalin]

One concern: has the average jury become more stupid (or less knowledgeable) over the decades?

[Woodruff]

One concern: has the average jury become more stupid (or less knowledgeable) over the decades?

I don't believe so. In fact, I would suggest the opposite.

[Symmetry]

One concern: has the average jury become more stupid (or less knowledgeable) over the decades?

I doubt it. One of the main concerns in selecting and maintaining a jury nowadays is keeping them uninformed and isolated from their usual sources of information. The standard being that they would be pretty clued in otherwise.

Previously this was a standard, at least as I understand it, to prevent jury tampering through threats or bribes. Just my opinion on that, though.

But anyway- in this case I'm sort of wondering if you think that a jury system is worse than a non-jury system, presided over by a judge (generally a fairly senior law expert) in terms of current expertise on the deeper matters of recent technology?

[Phatscotty]

One concern: has the average jury become more stupid (or less knowledgeable) over the decades?

you know my answer to this.

I have begun to explore the possibility though that perhaps things were always this way (knowledge level), it just so happens that in the past all the people who currently do their small part in collectively holding our education system down (statistically) were not counted in the systems of the past. For example: Many students who today cannot read going into high school, probably would normally drop out of the school system in the olden days. This is to say, a century ago, any student who was in school was because that student wanted to be there, or else the family wanted the student to be there. Not to mention, there is exponentially more specialized knowledge available today.

[saxitoxin]

In the ideal world a jury won't convict one of their neighbors being tyrannically or maliciously prosecuted, regardless of the letters of the law. A lay jury provides balance to a system in which the agents of the sovereign/crown would otherwise both prosecute and convict.

I think the case for juries in civil trials is a little more muddled, but I'm pretty sure Samsung is able to waive their right to a jury trial and elect for a judge trial if they felt the case was too complex for jurors to understand. If NPR didn't explain that in their report, I would suggest that the one trying to "paint a story" was NPR itself.

[BigBallinStalin]

One concern: has the average jury become more stupid (or less knowledgeable) over the decades?

I doubt it. One of the main concerns in selecting and maintaining a jury nowadays is keeping them uninformed and isolated from their usual sources of information. The standard being that they would be pretty clued in otherwise.

Previously this was a standard, at least as I understand it, to prevent jury tampering through threats or bribes. Just my opinion on that, though.

But anyway- in this case I'm sort of wondering if you think that a jury system is worse than a non-jury system, presided over by a judge (generally a fairly senior law expert) in terms of current expertise on the deeper matters of recent technology?

Well, many lawsuits are already handled without juries and only with judges. Small claims courts and private/public arbitration (without/with judges involved) are two of such examples.

If a jury system was introduced to the above arenas, I think we could agree that this would be unnecessary, and that the costs wouldn't offset the benefits.


What about situations that involve a jury? The basic concept of being judged by one's peers is fine, but the basic concept that top-down legislation imposed by the federal government over 330+ million people is a source of the problem. For example, I wouldn't mind being judged by my peers if we belonged to a largely customary legal system--without federal intervention and without State intervention (which is marginally less bothersome).

Does that last paragraph make sense?

[BigBallinStalin]

In the ideal world a jury won't convict one of their neighbors being tyrannically or maliciously prosecuted, regardless of the letters of the law. A lay jury provides balance to a system in which the agents of the sovereign/crown would otherwise both prosecute and convict.

I think the case for juries in civil trials is a little more muddled, but I'm pretty sure Samsung is able to waive their right to a jury trial and elect for a judge trial if they felt the case was too complex for jurors to understand. If NPR didn't explain that in their report, I would suggest that the one trying to "paint a story" was NPR itself.

I would dread having to explain monopolies and entrepreneurship in 5 minutes to a random group of people who generally are not willing to be there.

[saxitoxin]

In the ideal world a jury won't convict one of their neighbors being tyrannically or maliciously prosecuted, regardless of the letters of the law. A lay jury provides balance to a system in which the agents of the sovereign/crown would otherwise both prosecute and convict.

I think the case for juries in civil trials is a little more muddled, but I'm pretty sure Samsung is able to waive their right to a jury trial and elect for a judge trial if they felt the case was too complex for jurors to understand. If NPR didn't explain that in their report, I would suggest that the one trying to "paint a story" was NPR itself.

I would dread having to explain monopolies and entrepreneurship in 5 minutes to a random group of people who generally are not willing to be there.

Should jurors in a civil trial receive adequate compensation? I mean, instead of the court paying jurors $10/day, should the plaintiff have to put $X in escrow per juror/per day, payable to the jury at the conclusion of the case regardless of verdict? An amount that's more equal to their lost time and wages?

[BigBallinStalin]

In the ideal world a jury won't convict one of their neighbors being tyrannically or maliciously prosecuted, regardless of the letters of the law. A lay jury provides balance to a system in which the agents of the sovereign/crown would otherwise both prosecute and convict.

I think the case for juries in civil trials is a little more muddled, but I'm pretty sure Samsung is able to waive their right to a jury trial and elect for a judge trial if they felt the case was too complex for jurors to understand. If NPR didn't explain that in their report, I would suggest that the one trying to "paint a story" was NPR itself.

I would dread having to explain monopolies and entrepreneurship in 5 minutes to a random group of people who generally are not willing to be there.

Should jurors in a civil trial receive adequate compensation? I mean, instead of the court paying jurors $10/day, should the plaintiff have to put $X in escrow per juror/per day, payable to the jury at the conclusion of the case regardless of verdict? An amount that's more equal to their lost time and wages?

Great question. The solution would be found in a competitive legal system that's based on profit and loss incentives (and also non-profit organization, where feasible), but if it's imposed in a monopolized legal system, it would be through arbitrary price controls and regulations, which suffer from the knowledge and incentive problems.

So, it's possible that a court could pay out more to the juries, or would require the plaintiffs and/or defendants to do so, or maybe no payment would be required--instead your participation in the court system of your choice would justify a deduction in the fees for subscribing to such a club/organization.

[Symmetry]

One concern: has the average jury become more stupid (or less knowledgeable) over the decades?

I doubt it. One of the main concerns in selecting and maintaining a jury nowadays is keeping them uninformed and isolated from their usual sources of information. The standard being that they would be pretty clued in otherwise.

Previously this was a standard, at least as I understand it, to prevent jury tampering through threats or bribes. Just my opinion on that, though.

But anyway- in this case I'm sort of wondering if you think that a jury system is worse than a non-jury system, presided over by a judge (generally a fairly senior law expert) in terms of current expertise on the deeper matters of recent technology?

Well, many lawsuits are already handled without juries and only with judges. Small claims courts and private/public arbitration (without/with judges involved) are two of such examples.

If a jury system was introduced to the above arenas, I think we could agree that this would be unnecessary, and that the costs wouldn't offset the benefits.


What about situations that involve a jury? The basic concept of being judged by one's peers is fine, but the basic concept that top-down legislation imposed by the federal government over 330+ million people is a source of the problem. For example, I wouldn't mind being judged by my peers if we belonged to a largely customary legal system--without federal intervention and without State intervention (which is marginally less bothersome).

Does that last paragraph make sense?

I get what you're saying here, and generally I see your point. The OP was kind of dealing with the problem of technical expertise with regards to a jury. A judge, I would say, would be likely to have even less expertise on current technology than a jury, or at least would be on the same level such that the OP's problem wouldn't be solved.

Perhaps a solution might be found in turning some cases over to a more European, or specifically French (yeah- I know boo-hoo) style system where the judge directs the investigation rather than acts as an arbiter?

It might be better in very technical cases, while maintaining the normal system for other cases.

Just a thought, though.

[saxitoxin]

Perhaps a solution might be found in turning some cases over to a more European, or specifically French (yeah- I know boo-hoo) style system where the judge directs the investigation rather than acts as an arbiter?

That's a pretty good idea. Perhaps there could be a special Patent Court, like the Tax Courts, where such a system was put in place.

[Symmetry]

Perhaps a solution might be found in turning some cases over to a more European, or specifically French (yeah- I know boo-hoo) style system where the judge directs the investigation rather than acts as an arbiter?

That's a pretty good idea. Perhaps there could be a special Patent Court, like the Tax Courts, where such a system was put in place.

I can't speak for those, but there does seem to be a point where adversarial justice breaks down at the point of expertise.

[BigBallinStalin]

One concern: has the average jury become more stupid (or less knowledgeable) over the decades?

I doubt it. One of the main concerns in selecting and maintaining a jury nowadays is keeping them uninformed and isolated from their usual sources of information. The standard being that they would be pretty clued in otherwise.

Previously this was a standard, at least as I understand it, to prevent jury tampering through threats or bribes. Just my opinion on that, though.

But anyway- in this case I'm sort of wondering if you think that a jury system is worse than a non-jury system, presided over by a judge (generally a fairly senior law expert) in terms of current expertise on the deeper matters of recent technology?

Well, many lawsuits are already handled without juries and only with judges. Small claims courts and private/public arbitration (without/with judges involved) are two of such examples.

If a jury system was introduced to the above arenas, I think we could agree that this would be unnecessary, and that the costs wouldn't offset the benefits.


What about situations that involve a jury? The basic concept of being judged by one's peers is fine, but the basic concept that top-down legislation imposed by the federal government over 330+ million people is a source of the problem. For example, I wouldn't mind being judged by my peers if we belonged to a largely customary legal system--without federal intervention and without State intervention (which is marginally less bothersome).

Does that last paragraph make sense?

I get what you're saying here, and generally I see your point. The OP was kind of dealing with the problem of technical expertise with regards to a jury. A judge, I would say, would be likely to have even less expertise on current technology than a jury, or at least would be on the same level such that the OP's problem wouldn't be solved.

That's cause for concern, but the judge has to know the law and isn't required to know about current technology or the latest fad and what have you. That job is for the lawyers to present--based on findings from whoever they hired.

Perhaps a solution might be found in turning some cases over to a more European, or specifically French (yeah- I know boo-hoo) style system where the judge directs the investigation rather than acts as an arbiter?

It might be better in very technical cases, while maintaining the normal system for other cases.

Just a thought, though.

Well, in many cases, a solution isn't needed--regarding those trials without a jury. Regarding those with a jury, I'm not so sure if there's really a difference in the outcomes. In the US, the judge doesn't lead the investigations, but the government simply outsources that to the public police and their detectives and forensic scientists. So the same basic functions are being performed but through different bureaucracies. So, how would having a judge be (a) knowledgeable of the law and (b) be an presumably able administrator on heading an investigation be better than having the judge specialize in (a)?

Why would that be a good idea?


1. Who pays for the expenses? Like private investigations, or trials run by experts (e.g. those physicists who replicate crashes)? Much of this, with arbitration, settlements, and (if no settlement, then off to court) is handled by lawyers and the people whom they hire. So, why put this all under the realm of the government?