"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
...
On Dec 4, 10:23 am, "Maxwell" wrote:

I've pondered that a few times myself Ross, and I think I would have to
agree. I think judges do a good job with their experience, but they too
often tend to get too anal with the letter of the law and loose a bit of
their ability to judge. Seems a trained panel could do a better job of
looking at cases from different angles, and reaching the most reasonable
conclusion. The way we select juries today can often be a real turkey
shoot.

Think about the type of people who are not excused from jury duty.
Depending on the judge juriors can be excused because they have a lot
going on at work, because they have a business meeting etc. The self-
employed are almost always excused. Especially in a long trial you end
up with welfare moms, state employees, and retirees. Hardly our
peers.



I hear that's the way it is in my county as well. They seem to call far more
than they need, and offer reprieve many are vocal about the hardship.
Perhaps a good thing, when you have less people empanelled that truly resent
having to be there. But then that could very well effect the quality I
guess. I think I would almost support a professional panel of non-lawyers
for jurors.