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