Confidential(c) to slaggo, RSE, McCarthy and any other lawyers

[TerpEagle]

What does that have to do with whether juries are smart and operate intelligently?

Well intelligence is really only valuable when it's applied. If someone is "intelligent" but ignorant outside of what they're being told in the courtroom how far does that get them? Smart enough to determine whose trail of breadcrumbs contains less bullshit?

From a scientific perspective, how much of the story is really being presented to them? The part that one side or another wants them to hear. I don't care how intelligent someone is - most people are going to make decisions based on information and having "intelligent" jurors means less if they're only educated in that courtroom.

And, since you didn't answer my question - do you want a juror who thinks for him/herself and is an expert on that subject at hand prior to the trial?

[JuTMSY4]

You're missing my point

For a case last year, a fellow engineer and I did four investigations that required us to fly to the location and each averaged 3 10 hour days outside of travel. Now, I know that Southwest and Fairfield Inn are pretty high end mode of travel but it still gets expensive and we've gotta keep the lights on.

Unfortunately we have yet to outfit ourselves with mahogany conference tables and 700 series BMWs like the attorneys that require our expertise. I suppose arguments that are bought and paid for are somewhat nobler and more valuable.

I worked for a solo once who explained to me which experts he preferred. He was an 80 year old man

"I like my experts like I like my whores, cheap and listens to directions."

Experts aren't paid for because they are right, they're paid to give a defensible opinion.

Now that that's over, I'm going to get up from my mahogany desk and drive home in my 7 series.

[3rd & Inches]

I also have many leather bound books.

[TerpEagle]

I worked for a solo once who explained to me which experts he preferred. He was an 80 year old man

"I like my experts like I like my whores, cheap and listens to directions."

Experts aren't paid for because they are right, they're paid to give a defensible opinion.

Now that that's over, I'm going to get up from my mahogany desk and drive home in my 7 series.

Haha.

That says as much about the lawyer as the expert in my opinion. It's amusing that the cost of experts is being complained or discussed with astonishment when the cheap whore may be the preference.

[TerpEagle]

I worked for a solo once who explained to me which experts he preferred. He was an 80 year old man

"I like my experts like I like my whores, cheap and listens to directions."

Experts aren't paid for because they are right, they're paid to give a defensible opinion.

Now that that's over, I'm going to get up from my mahogany desk and drive home in my 7 series.

And I don't dispute that there are many experts who operate in that manner. It's a delight when they get embarrassed.

[McCarthy12]

Upon some reflection, I admit, that came across kind of snotty. Juries are people, so you get a cross section as you would with any group of people. Some smarter than others with different areas of knowledge and experiences. Being a juror in a long trial is certainly not a task I would envy. Just having to pay attention for such long stretches would not be easy. So yeah, I don't want to belittle the intelligence of the average juror, as that would just be belittling the intelligence of the average American, or myself, actually.

But I also think about how I would feel if I were a defendant. Honestly, if my life or financial livelihood were at stake only to be decided by a group of strangers, I would probably be frightened. Even if I knew I were innocent - especially if I were innocent - I would still be very nervous.

[slag]

That kind of person would likely be perceived by me as biased toward one side because of his expertise in the field, so it would depend on what side I represented.

And your suggestion that smart people cannot know enough to decide a case based on what is presented to them in a courtroom, even if not experts on all matters at hand, is fucking insulting to smart people everywhere.

[RSE]

There's a big difference between an intelligent jury and a jury which operates intelligently. The jury organism usually reaches the right, or a right, result. I've listened to our appellate lawyers destroy the cases of our client's trial lawyers who believed with righteous certainty that the jury got it wrong.

[RSE]

Indeed, your inability to answer the question asked would lead me to doubt your utility as an expert.

[TerpEagle]

That kind of person would likely be perceived by me as biased toward one side because of his expertise in the field, so it would depend on what side I represented.

And your suggestion that smart people cannot know enough to decide a case based on what is presented to them in a courtroom, even if not experts on all matters at hand, is fucking insulting to smart people everywhere.

You're missing my point. I'm not dismissing the intelligence of a juror or their capacity to make a decision grounded in what's presented to them.

But, they can only (for the most part) decide based on what is in front of them and doubtfully based on any other relevant knowledge if they're ignorant to the issue at hand.

As you said, you would only want the educated juror if the bias is in your favor. That right there says that it's about what you can get the jury to believe, not how intelligent they are and especially not what level of education in the subject they have.

[slag]

No, I said nothing of the sort.

I said I would pick a jury like I'd sell something ... by targeting my market.

And nobody is an expert on everything that comes up at a trial.

Are you really this thick?

[TerpEagle]

Indeed, your inability to answer the question asked would lead me to doubt your utility as an expert.

What question - this one?

---
What does that have to do with whether juries are smart and operate intelligently?
---

I don't believe I ever questioned the intelligence of a jury or that I even questioned its ability to operate intelligently based on what is presented to it. My question was regarding the knowledge level of the jury.

That's my original post regarding this. I've bolded the main points of which I had interest.
---
Does a lawyer want a jury that really thinks for itself? If you're trying a case say that involves pharmaceutical malpractice/liability - would you want a juror who works in a pharmaceutical lab and/or is an expert in chemistry, medicinal process control, etc.?

I would think not because that juror has a great ability to form their own opinions based on outside knowledge and understanding of the problem compared to average-joe who only has testimony to educate them.

So perhaps juries are intelligent and smart, but how educated are they relatively speaking?
---

I simply was asking for the perspective of a lawyer regarding how knowledgeable a juror is of the subject at hand.

I clarified that in my response to slag.

So in fact, slag asked me a question that really didn't apply to what I was asking you (the community).

You continued to talk about jury intelligence and intelligent operation. I didn't dispute your original premise, but asked specifically about education/knowledge.

So in fact, you have yet to answer my question. The question posed to me missed my my point.

[TerpEagle]

No, I said nothing of the sort.

I said I would pick a jury like I'd sell something ... by targeting my market.

And nobody is an expert on everything that comes up at a trial.

Are you really this thick?

Too thick to understand that you're going to pick a jury that benefits you? Of course not.

You've confirmed my assumptions though.

---
That kind of person would likely be perceived by me as biased toward one side because of his expertise in the field, so it would depend on what side I represented.
---

I think that's reasonable. But I think saying that a jury act intelligent requires the caveat - given the (limited) information presented to them.

[slag]

No, I'm going to pick a jury that I think will hinder my case.

What a twit.

[slag]

PS

You assume my statement that experts would likely be perceived as biased one way or the other means lawyers want stupid people who they can fool.

No ... it means they don't want a biased person on the jury.

Now go hire a lawyer who picks jurors he/she thinks are biased against his/her case.