摘要：In his essay, Asking Jurors To Do the Impossible,' Peter Tiersma identifies several ways in which jurors have difficult, if not impossible, roles to play and suggests several steps that courts could take to aid jurors in performing these roles. He offers a number of recommendations, such as having judges instruct jurors in plain and specific language, allowing jurors to ask questions about the instructions, and explaining to jurors the reasons for certain rules. His recommendations are sensible, and courts would do well to follow his advice. With the exception of his call for the creation of expert juries in technical cases, I agree with his recommendations, though I think there are good reasons to go even further than Tiersma does with several of the reforms he proposes.
