I think the intent is to have people &quot;relying on legal experts to provide legal information&quot;. What often happens is &quot;bastardizing legal experts&#x27; explanations to fit your own views&quot;. I suspect there&#x27;s a fear that trying to apply the law on one&#x27;s own leads to the latter happening more. But one could argue that it happens anyways, as you point out.<p>I wouldn&#x27;t argue the absence of bias, we seem to be in agreement there, and I think that&#x27;s the real point of the article. A lot of the arguments on this thread seem to be aimed at the jury system in general. In my opinion, it&#x27;s not a fault of the jury system, but a fault of people. The jury system, and the instructions given (that we&#x27;re debating now) are meant to try and minimize that, but they&#x27;re far from perfect.<p>The question then becomes, &quot;how do we best get jurors the information they need, while preserving their impartiality?&quot; And I think that&#x27;s a hard thing to do.