We have seen recently in two celebrated trials, O.J. Simpson and Louise Woodard, how the jury can be confused by the plethora of complex scientific testimony.

Would it not be a credit to the task of serving the ends of "justice" by having selected individuals who can understand the testimony offered? At the inception of our country, great thought was given to providing the citizens with the best possible chance for a fair trial. But does deceit or confusion serve any justifiable end?

In 1789, testimony was much simpler. The modern technological wars have given way to a situation which can overwhelm the ordinary citizen. If the complex data offered to the jury box can be understood by those NOT educated in that field, why then do individuals spend years acquiring such precise knowledge?

The course of our legal history is replete with changes on how to protect the defendant; a fair trial should also perhaps encompass fairness to the society the laws are designed to protect as well.

Having said that is the time not ripe for a "professional" jury? One trained..tested..and paid to do a single purpose - deciding guilt or innocence based solely upon the evidence. In this day and age, it sounds almost as a novel idea !

Such a jury, or rather several groups of them, would be available from each state. If a change of venue was decided, then an outside jury might be brought in to hear the evidence and deliberate.

Today trials can last several months thus limiting those who might be able to serve. How many people can afford to take 9 months off from their jobs to sit upon a jury?

2) Should all attorneys speaking in open court also be placed under oath? What would be the reason NOT to require this? If information is presented to the judge/jury, shouldn't such information be forthcoming from a position of truth? Who should be permitted to lie or mislead at trial? How can truth and justice prevail if people cannot be held accountable for their remarks? Of course, what an attorney says in open court is NOT evidence, but its impact is readily recognized and jurors do not have the level of sophistication to keep that point uppermost in their minds as they deliberate.

3) With the recent newspapers reporting an increase in crimes which they say is predicated upon "hate"...SHOULD THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PASS LAWS ENHANCING THE PENALTIES FOR SUCH CRIMES? 

Or perhaps is this approach merely a political ploy to curry favor with minority voting blocks? Would the passage of such legislation merely create yet another schism in our population by making some people privileged by having those who would attack them suffer greater penalties? 

Whatever happened to "equal protection under the law" ? If a non- privileged citizen is attacked, shouldn't his attacker be punished to the same extent?  Should there be "open season" on one segment of our society while another is better protected because they are of a select group?

4) With reports of Police brutality raising tempers high in minority quarters perhaps we need a citizen "code of conduct". 

Such a code would clearly spell out what is expected of a citizen when approached by police, perhaps a certain stance..silence..and compliance with police directions would all strive toward the goal of minimizing police vs. citizen confrontations?

After all, why should not a citizen willingly comply with the lawful orders of the police? 

Additionally, if the citizen failed to comply with such lawful orders and the citizen is subsequently injured,. then the citizen would have NO right to sue for injuries or punitive damages in civil court. 

However, if the police were wrong in their actions they would then be liable to any criminal charges that would apply.

Comments are requested from all users. If you are a practicing attorney, researcher or student, please identify which group you are from.