I tend to agree with GlassMan. It is frustrating trying to break down complex evidence and dumb-down good/solid science for a jury (called "spoon feeding") without giving the defense fresh territory to explore or areas to poke holes in the evidence (called "muddying the waters”).

The other thing that happens if the defendant has $$$, the defense brings in hired guns. So-called "experts" with PHDs that are paid to skew the science and lend doubt by confusing the jury. These hired guns will go to any length to earn their paycheck.

These are a couple of the biggest problems with the U.S. jury system. On the same token, the jury of 12 is your right in the U.S.

I would like to see a professional 3 or 5 person jury panel that hears technical and scientific evidence and their ruling on the evidence is presented to the 12 person lay jury, so it is one less thing they have to decide. Let all of the wrangling over DNA, GSR, trace evidence, physics, tidal charts and "transfer theory" take place in front of professional scientist/jurors. With all of these sci-fi police shows like CSI, it gives lay juries a false expectation of what can be done by police, within a publicly funded lab and within a realistic timeline. Under ordinary conditions, >90% of what those shows portray as routine everyday technology is beyond the capabilities of 99% of the police crime labs in the world. DNA results in 30 seconds. Fingerprint database search from a partial latent taken off a quarter found in a phone booth in 20 seconds. Yeah, right. Epithelials from a matchbook, c'mon! It makes fun entertainment, but it is not possible to enhance a usable facial image from a reflection in a victim's eye (or even a hubcap of a passing vehicle) taken off even the best closed circuit surveillance camera 30-40 yards away. Not even the NSA can do that.

Okay, rant over. Back on topic:
I'm glad I posted this thread. I will likely ever get a chance to be on a jury, but I thought it would be an interesting topic for discussion.