So true. I once had the experience of being called to sit on a federal jury. It was a medical malpractice case being heard by the "Rocket Docket" US District Court in Alexandria and I was looking forward to the experience. But the Voir Dire was eye-opening. The questions seemed to be designed to eliminate anyone with even the faintest modicum of professional expertise in any field. The final jury was composed of young housewives, younger students and feeble elderly folks. One woman who was ultimately selected was prone to disruptive outbursts and gave inappropriate and confrontational answers to the judge. Excepting the latter I don't think these people were dolts and clods, but they seemed ill-chosen for a case that was obviously going to hinge on complex medical and scientific evidence. The group that was struck were almost to a man highly-educated professionals.
Yes...I was struck. But I will humbly admit that I was the last strike, lest my previous comment seem boastful. ;-) Maybe I should have called the judge "Mister Judge"...that seemed to work for one girl.
jboot, Your account of the “dumbing down” process during jury selection is appalling and all too true.
A biggest part of the problems w/ our jury system can be summed up in one word: lawyers. Apply such descriptive adjectives as you see fit in a given case - smart slick sleazy crooked paid-off dirty stupid uninterested etc and many more. This lawyer pool is to include the trial judges and the lawmakers that craft our laws and helped to form the rules of evidence. And also all in the appellate system up to and including the Supremes.
There is a reason why lawyer jokes are so ghastly funny. They are true.