[pygorex]

I'm glad that any citizen gets to be on a jury rather than some elite set of experts

Expert testimony is used in trial all the time and is given great weight by jurors. Experts parse out highly technical details and draw conclusions to help the jury. Now, I'm not disagreeing with your initial assertion, but am pointing out that our justice system depends mightily on technical and professional elites.

The problem with this case is that a set of very complex and technical questions (did one or more patent infringements occur?) are being decided by non-experts. Having a lay jury decide these questions is as absurd as having the jury determine the caliber of gun used in a murder. Technical questions require expert/elite knowledge to untangle.

[bpatrianakos]

I comppletely agree but my point was that since we can't have it both ways, a jury comprised of average citizens is preferable to a jury of elites no matter the profession or industry. I'm sure an expert jury would have made a far better decision but I'm in favor of the lesser of the two evils.

[fakeer]

in favor of the lesser of the two evils

It can be (and is) extremely dangerous at times. Leave the billion dollar aside for some time. It can kill an innocent and set a culprit free, if that's the valid rationale of yours.

[bluedanieru]

I suspect expert testimony in jury trials will be less effective in American jury trials as anti-intellectualism continues its rise there. In Japan with lay judges now we see the opposite problem as the lay judges mostly just decide the case in whatever way the expert judge prefers.