On Wed, 4 Jan 2006 12:21:54 -0800, "Jeff McCann" wrote:

(snip)
It bears directly on the issue of impartiality. It is a panel of jurors,
not a panel of investigators. The jury's job is to weigh the credibility
and probative value of the evidence and restimony presented at trial, and
certainly not to rely on their own, unknown, untestable, unexaminable and
unchallangeable "experience" in the matter. Lots of people "know" stuff
that just ain't so. The only proper role for "experience" is in the common
sense judgment the juror applies in weighing the credibility and probative
value of the evidence and restimony presented at trial.

You mean like the juror in the Michael Jackson trial who told the reporter after
the trial was over how she voted to acquit because she didn't like the way the
accuser's mother kept "gesturing" toward the jury when she was testifying?

Now THAT sounds like some good "common sense" experience thinking to apply when
deciding guilt or innocence in a trial. :/