That's why in these cases you'd prefer a judgment without a jury. Technical cases like this will always confuse jurors, who can't be expected to understand details about sdk, data sharing, APIs etc.

On the other hand, in a number of highprofile tech cases, you can see judges learning and discussing engineering in a deeper level.

▲

zahlman 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

> Technical cases like this will always confuse jurors... On the other hand, in a number of highprofile tech cases, you can see judges learning and discussing engineering in a deeper level.

Not to be ageist, but I find this highly counterintuitive.

▲

pc86 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Judges aren't necessarily brilliant, but they do spend their entire careers reading, listening to, and dissecting arguments. A large part of this requires learning new information at least well enough to make sense of arguments on both sides of the issue. So you do end up probably self-selecting for older folks able to do this better than the mean for their age, and likely for the population at large.

Let's just say with a full jury you're almost guaranteed to get someone on the other side of the spectrum, regardless of age.

▲

willsmith72 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

how exactly? you expect the average joe to have a better technical understanding, and more importantly ability to learn, than a judge? that is bizarre to me

	▲	zahlman 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		I expect the average joe to use technology much more than a judge.

▲

BobaFloutist 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

The judge is at their job. The jury is conscripts that are often paying a financial penalty to be present.

▲

mulmen 2 days ago | parent [-]

Weird deference to authority

▲

BobaFloutist 20 hours ago | parent [-]

What? No, I think jury trials are very, very important, for all their flaws, but I don't think it demonstrates deference to authority to say that it makes sense that your average judge is likely to be more invested in your average trial than your average jury, for the same reason that volunteer militaries tend to have more dedicated soldiers than conscript militaries.

The judge decided to pursue this career, studied law, is fairly well paid for the position, and has nowhere better to be. The jury is likely losing pay, is worried about parking and where and when they're going to eat lunch, and probably just wants the trial to be over (for all that they would of course prefer the outcome to be correct) so they can go home and return to their normal lives.

	▲	mulmen 16 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> I don't think it demonstrates deference to authority to say that it makes sense that your average judge is likely to be more invested in your average trial than your average jury First off averages aren’t good enough here. Second I can’t imagine a better example of an appeal to authority. Trials are an administrative action. Interest in the process is no indication that the outcome will be just. Your idea falls apart for all of the reasons an appeal to authority is a fallacy. Additionally you’re fundamentally changing the nature of society by holding the people accountable to power rather than each other.

▲

dehrmann 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I've also heard you want a judge trial if you're innocent, jury if you're guilty. A judge will quickly see through prosecutorial BS if you didn't do it, and if you did, it only takes one to hang.

▲

echoangle 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Is it easier for the prosecution to make the jury think Facebook is guilty or for Facebook to make the jury think they are not? I don’t see why one would be easier, except if the jury would be prejudiced against Facebook already. Or is it just luck who the jury sides with?

▲

dylan604 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

I'd imagine Facebook looking for any potential juror in tech to be dismissed as quickly as possible while the prosecution would be looking to seat as many tech jurors they can luck their way into seating.

▲

azemetre 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I mean it totally depends what your views on democracy are. Juries are one of the few, likely only, practices taken from Ancient Athenian democracy which was truly led by the people. The fact that juries still work this way is a testament to the practice.

With this in mind, I personally believe groups will always come to better conclusions than individuals.

Being tried by 12 instead of 1 means more diversity of thought and opinion.

▲

tracker1 2 days ago | parent [-]

I mostly agree here, but would add there's definitely a social pressure to go along with the group a lot of the time, even in jury trials. How many people genuinely have the fortitude to stand up to a group of 10+ others with a countering pov.

	▲	azemetre a day ago \| parent [-]
		I don't disagree, but think of the pressures a judge has as an individual as well. Pressures from the legal community, the electorate, and being seen as impartial. There is a wisdom of the crowd, and that wisdom comes in believing that we are all equal under the law. This wisdom is more self evident in democratic systems, like juries.

▲

mrkstu 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

My understanding is defendants always get to choose, no? So that was an available option they chose not to avail themselves to.

▲

at-fates-hands 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

>> Technical cases like this will always confuse jurors.

This has been an issue since the internet was invented. Its always been the duty of the lawyers on both sides to present the information in cases like this in a manner that is understandable to the jurors.

I distinctly remember during the OJ case, there were many issues that the media said most likely were presented in such a detailed manner, many in the jurors seemed to be checked out. At the time, the prosecution spent days just on the DNA evidence. In contrast, the defense spent days just on how the LAPD collected evidence at the crime scene with the same effect, that many on the jury seemed to check out the deeper the defense dug into it.

So it not just technical cases, any kind of court case that requires a detailed understanding of anything complex comes down to how the lawyers present it to the jury.