Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ncar!tank!cps3xx!netnews.upenn.edu!vax1.cc.lehigh.edu!sei.cmu.edu!krvw
From: peggy%pyr@gatech.edu (Cris Simpson)
Newsgroups: comp.virus
Subject: Re: Internet worm writer stands trial (Internet)
Message-ID: <0009.9001181613.AA20449@ge.sei.cmu.edu>
Date: 18 Jan 90 14:29:37 GMT
Sender: Virus Discussion List <VIRUS-L@IBM1.CC.Lehigh.EDU>
Lines: 35
Approved: krvw@sei.cmu.edu

damon@umbc2.umbc.edu (Damon Kelley; (RJE)) writes:
>  [...]
>	When I read the article that I got the above information from,
>I was a bit shocked that the jurors were deliberately picked by the
>U.S. Justice Department lawyers because didn't know *anything* about
>computers.  Would the jurors understand enough of the computer talk
>thrown between defense and prosecutor to reach a truly informed
>verdict?
>
>	My mother and I discussed the issue.  I said that the trial
>would be unbalanced and handled badly because every little techie term
>would have to be explained over and over again to the jury, slowing
>down the trial process.  Isn't a "jury of his peers" called for here?
>  [...]
>Source: _The_Baltimore_Evening_Sun_, January 15, 1990. Section D, top
>of page 2: "'Illiterates' Judging Computer Genius."   [..]

	One of the most frightening experiences of my life was being
called to jury duty.  I got to see what a 'jury of my peers' would
consist of.  It gives one a lot of incentive not to get caught. (:-)

IANAL, but I see a problem in the future with technology-related
litigation.  What good is the right to have your case tried before
a jury of idiots?  For example, consider Intel v. NEC or Apple v.
MS & HP.  It's hard enough explaining the concepts involved to a
reasonably intelligent judge, but a jury picked because they didn't
know anything?

I suppose that if a jury of people from Washington, DC can be found
who never heard of Ollie North, I suppose there's a jury for all of
us...  (:-)

cris

*IANAL: I Am Not A Lawyer.  (But my wife is.)