I agree with you entirely, Conni. I think many trials would be better served by a panel of judges who reviewed the evidence in lieu of a “jury of one’s peers.” In this case, I suspect that we reached the “right” decision according to the law — and I’m pretty sure the judge steered us that way with his instructions — but there was nothing technical or specialized at stake, either. One benefit to a jury in the case I served for: the plaintiff could not feel that she had been wronged by the “system” since we truly were a jury of her peers, and we rendered an unanimous verdict. I still hope that pushed her to try some kind of reconciliation with her neighbor, but I’ll never know.

Thank you for reading and responding! I appreciate you.