<story><title>Judge Alsup Slams Patent Troll</title><url>https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190508/17291342168/judge-alsup-slams-patent-troll-basically-everything.shtml</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>DoofusOfDeath</author><text>It seems strange to me that having prior technical knowledge in some field is seen as an assett in a judge, but a reason to disqualify a juror.&lt;p&gt;Is it the case that lawyers don&amp;#x27;t want anyone to understand the technical issues, but they only have the ability to get rid of potential jurors, not judges?</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>tzs</author><text>The plaintiff needs a unanimous decision by the jury to win, and has a limited amount of time to present arguments and to counter defense arguments. The Court actually keeps track of time used, and will cut them when they hit the limit.&lt;p&gt;The more uniform your audience is, the better chance you have to craft an argument that will work with all of them.&lt;p&gt;Suppose the trial involves some specialized field, and you have a jury with a wide range of knowledge about that field. Both plaintiff and defendant are going to include in their cases an explanation of the relevant field, pitched for the backgrounds of the jurors with the least prior knowledge.&lt;p&gt;If the jury also has people who are experts in that field, there are at least three potential problems.&lt;p&gt;1. They are going to be bored during the part where you are explaining the field to the rest of the jury, and might let their minds wander, and might miss something important.&lt;p&gt;2. Your primer on their field necessarily simplifies things, and if you simplify in a different way than they would, it could prejudice them against your case.&lt;p&gt;3. The other jurors may turn to them for guidance on the evidence relating to that field. That&amp;#x27;s problematical for two reasons.&lt;p&gt;3a. If the evidence relating to the field is in an area where experts in that field disagree, the other jurors will get the position of the expert juror, and will probably give that more weight than the testimony of exports at trial who take a different position.&lt;p&gt;In effect, the expert juror ends up also as a de facto expert witness in the trial--but an expert witness not subject to examination or cross examination.&lt;p&gt;3b. There is a danger that if the jury turns to the expert juror for help on the technical evidence, they will also tend to give more weight to that juror&amp;#x27;s opinion on the rest of evidence.</text></comment>
<story><title>Judge Alsup Slams Patent Troll</title><url>https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190508/17291342168/judge-alsup-slams-patent-troll-basically-everything.shtml</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>DoofusOfDeath</author><text>It seems strange to me that having prior technical knowledge in some field is seen as an assett in a judge, but a reason to disqualify a juror.&lt;p&gt;Is it the case that lawyers don&amp;#x27;t want anyone to understand the technical issues, but they only have the ability to get rid of potential jurors, not judges?</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>kryogen1c</author><text>Incentive structures for lawyers are based on winning. Its easier to convince someone ignorant that youre correct when you can supply (again, winning-incentivized) expert testimony that proves youre correct, instead of hoping the jury sees it your way.</text></comment>