but I would tailor the process to bring in jurists not
picked
by the litigants attorney's.
Like the one in the UK whereby a
random selection of the [local] population are asked to turn up at the [local]
court to act as a pool of potential jurors and then a random selection of them
are chosen to sit when a jury is needed; the only way a juror can be excused at
this point is if they have [strong] connection with either party. (Owning
Apple/Samsung devices would not count as a strong connection).
The jury
trials that I've followed in Groklaw appear to only be possible as the jury is
biased by selection by the parties and the jury questionnaire.
It seems to
be a paradox that the effect of trying to remove all potential bias from the
jury leaves a jury unqualified to understand the evidence (just like the paradox
that if you have a sequence of numbers that is tested for [unbiased] randomness,
the more the sequence adheres to the tests, the more likely it is that you can
predict the next number in the sequence accurately!)
If the US wants a
cheaper, simpler and more efficient system, go out onto the streets and pick up
12 random homeless people - they are very unlikely to be biased by prior
knowledge of the issues of the case or of the parties; it would cut down the
court time in selecting the jury to about 5 minutes removing the need for the
expensive jury lawyers, and the need to pay all the other court officials for
ages whilst the process proceeds. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
