> Yes, there may be instances where a jury foreman misinterprets the law, but that can happen anyway, so why attempt to enforce the unenforceable and pretend domain knowledge isn't important or useful?
It's not really that domain knowledge isn't important or useful; it's that this isn't the place for it. If you have domain knowledge, its inclusion is meant to contribute to the process at the point of legislation, not the point of interpretation. If your domain knowledge disagrees with the law, then you should get the law changed, not misinterpreted.
If, like in Apple vs. Samsung, one juror has specialized knowledge and uses that to act as an authority, he's basically disemboweling the entire point of three branches of government, each disarming each other. He ignores the law, chooses his own interpretation, and gets it executed. If that's not clear, this is the "judge, jury, and executioner" powers vested in a single person.
It's not really that domain knowledge isn't important or useful; it's that this isn't the place for it. If you have domain knowledge, its inclusion is meant to contribute to the process at the point of legislation, not the point of interpretation. If your domain knowledge disagrees with the law, then you should get the law changed, not misinterpreted.
If, like in Apple vs. Samsung, one juror has specialized knowledge and uses that to act as an authority, he's basically disemboweling the entire point of three branches of government, each disarming each other. He ignores the law, chooses his own interpretation, and gets it executed. If that's not clear, this is the "judge, jury, and executioner" powers vested in a single person.