Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site hou4b.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxj!houxm!vax135!ariel!hou4b!dwl From: dwl@hou4b.UUCP (D Levenson) Newsgroups: net.aviation Subject: Re: Av. Justice ????? Message-ID: <1274@hou4b.UUCP> Date: Mon, 14-Jan-85 13:03:02 EST Article-I.D.: hou4b.1274 Posted: Mon Jan 14 13:03:02 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 15-Jan-85 01:56:41 EST References: <10400008@hpfcmt.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Information Systems Laboratories, Holmdel, NJ Lines: 18 From my experience as a juror and as a witness, the events described in the original article are not uncommon. The technique of deliberately removing from the jury anyone with any special knowlege of the facts of the case or of the general subject is common in legal proceedings. The intent is for the jury to decide upon the guilt or innocence of the defendant based SOLELY on what is heard and seen in the court. Testimony from witnesses. Testimony from expert witnesses, if there are technicalities. But never the juror's own background or experience, except in areas of ordinary day to day life such as all humans may reasonably expect to have had. In short, jurors should be interchangeable without altering the decision. The job of the lawyer, in a courtroom, is to convince a jury of the peers of the defendant. If a technical understanding of power transmission or aerodynamics is germaine to the case, then an expert witness is called, and all jurors learn together. -Dave Levenson AT&T, Holmdel