Return-Path: Received: from [69.171.52.140] (account rob HELO [144.54.59.3]) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3c2) with ESMTP-TLS id 753716 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 21 Feb 2005 22:29:13 -0500 Message-ID: <421AA707.6040209@logan.com> Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 22:29:11 -0500 From: Rob Logan User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Macintosh/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lancair Mailing List Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Lycoming's Future? References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > I do not trust juries of lay people I asked a trial lawyer why I was always excused from jury selection when I disclosed that I had given expert testimony in a totally unrelated field. It not just that lawyers want lay people, but our league systems seems to requires it... he went on to explain about the burger king "super heated" coffee case.. I stopped him and asked how water can be above the boiling point in an open container. the conversation went down hill from there, but the take away for me was: Juries are required to toss all existing experience out the window and decide the case only on the facts presented in the case.. Even if I got on a jury, I'm not so sure I could forfill that requirement. Other experts have the same problem and why its an automatic disqualification. Rob ps: this is a little off topic, so we should take it off line, but if there is a league pro out there, I would be interested in knowing off line why past experience is sooo bad in a jury.