There is no suggestion that the right to a jury should be curtailed in criminal cases because of complexity in cases involving, for example, organized crime or securities fraud. Why a jury is competent to decide a complex case where a person's life or liberty are at stake, but is incompetent to decide the same case where that same person's property is at stake, is not clear to me. This argument unnecessarily and improperly demeans the intelligence of the citizens of this Nation. With respect to factual issues, it is unlikely that one judge has any special competence that makes him superior to the collective ability of twelve jurors. What distresses me about the assumption of juror ignorance is that it takes the resolution of disputes out of the hands of the people and turns it over to experts, and we all know that an expert is a person with a briefcase more than a hundred miles from home.
Modern life is complex.
There are forces at work that we do not understand, but I am reluctant to turn over the basic decisions that are part of our form of government to a judge who may or may not himself understand the issues in a complicated case. It demonstrates a lack of faith in the citizenry to do justice. Federal Rules and Joinder Many complex and lengthy trials are the product of the federal rules which allow for joinder. By encouraging the joinder of claims and the consolidation of suits, the rules create the monster that threatens to overwhelm both juries and judges. Rather than allow this rule-created complexity to deprive parties of their Constitutional right, the rules should be forced to bend to the dictates of our Constitution.