I’m out of here, folks, it has been great. Ted, I disagree with the premise of your blog but I’m glad you are out there expressing your views. Makes the world a better place. Thanks to all.
– Ron Miller
http://www.marylandinjurylawyerblog.com/

If we have a mass referendum and ban smoking, I don’t think it would be a wise policy choice, but it would bother me significantly less than if six jurors decide to bankrupt the industry and give its money to a group of attorneys who used junk economics to justify a $100-billion award—especially since if that jury votes no, the attorneys are just going to try again with hundreds of other juries in a game of Russian roulette.

Actually we do. In business they’re called shareholder meetings.

In politics they’re called elections.

My .02.

Good discussion. I don’t agree with all of the viewpoints, but still impressed with the civility of the discussion and people presenting ideas instead of namecalling. Thanks for the post and the comments, Ted.

No one is asking for a jury to make these decisions. I think if experts argued the points of view to them they could make a good call. I note however that we do vote on political issue in free elections. I think the “juries can’t figure it out” logic is plain wrong. Alan Deroshwitz (sp?) famously said he would rather have the first 9 names in the phone book make the calls the Supreme Court makes. I don’t quite agree but I get his point.

[TF: juries do second-guess medical and engineering decisions; juries could easily be asked to second-guess business judgment or political decisions in liability trials, but we grant immunity to the actors who would be judged in such affairs.]

Suppose all other demographic categories of jurors respond to the argument, except this one. So the one side in this case can simply exclude jurors from the specific group indicated, and gain a significant advantage.

The other side cannot use the same information, as there is no other group to target for exclusion.

In other words the information enables one side over the other. It is not a plaintiff vs. defense issue, it could be the other way the next time.

Maybe the excluded group brings an important perspective to the case that others do not, and that is why their exclusion makes a difference.

I think we need a countervailing feature of jury selection: the ability of one side to “protect” a juror from exclusion by the other side. In other words, instead of choosing to exclude a juror, counsel could use that challenge to select a juror to not be excluded by the other side.

Then, the information could cut both ways.

I’m happy to have a jury system resolve basic questions of fact: Did the accused defendant rob the bank/sell the cocaine/shoot the victim? The idea that a lay jury given a game-show presentation is the optimal way to decide complex questions of science or engineering, however, strikes me as questionable. We don’t let juries second-guess executive business or political decisions. Why do we let them second-guess medical or engineering decisions?

To answer Deoxy’s response. My main goal in a jury is not to have any fringe elements from either side. If I had a group of people that were middle fo the road and had good common sense, I would be very happy with that.

Personally, I don’t look to create a situation where I have an unrepresentative / unfair jury. I also don’t want an unfair jury against me.

I understand Ted’s position for consistency. I also personally believe that the jury system is one of the lynchpins of our country and what makes our country better than the rest.

Your statement boils down to this:

There will always be airplain crashes, so we shouldn’t worry about why they happen or how to mak them happen less often.

You’ll excuse me if I don’t go along with that.