Juries surely have made mistakes ever since the idea was implemented. Many people have railed against the not guilty verdict in the O. J. Simpson murder trial wondering how a jury could take the tidbits of unlikely events in a way to give them cause for reasonable doubt about the man's guilt. This commentator would argue that there is no reasonable way any well balanced individual could find that there is not reasonable doubt of guilt in the case of Louise Woodward. If the defense had provided only one so-called medical expert, perhaps the jury could have thought that individual could have been persuaded to come to his opinion by inappropriate means.
Money is the frequently suggested means.
Expert witness are usually handsomely paid. In the Woodward case, not one, but six experts testified under oath and subject to imprisonment if they lied. Louise Woodward may or may not have been instrumental in the death of Matthew Eappen. Consider this failure with others. As a society we best begin looking at how to remedy this problem.