Why do critics argue that juries may struggle with complex legal cases?

Critics of the jury system often argue that laypersons may struggle with complex legal cases due to a lack of specialized training, discipline, and experience. While judges possess professional expertise that allows them to better understand intricate legal and factual matters, jurors are drawn from a broad range of backgrounds and intelligence levels without durable official responsibility.1

This perceived lack of competence has historically led to concerns that juries may fail to follow the law because they do not understand it, potentially resulting in the uneven administration of justice. To address these challenges, some jurisdictions previously utilized a blue-ribbon jury, which consisted of specially qualified citizens intended to handle complex technical or commercial questions. However, such juries are now largely obsolete in the United States due to concerns regarding the principle of equality. Modern legal systems typically address the increasing complexity of litigation through the use of expert witnesses or by assigning specific cases to administrative agencies rather than relying on specialized juries.12