"The Watcher" wrote in message
...
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. :/

Didn't see it, but maybe it was a reason to doubt the honesty of her
testimony, i.e., that she was playing to the jury?

Jeff