I had an idea for how to have a good impartial lab. My idea is use the CSI lab sets, all of the eqipment is real and works. Give the actors and extras enought training to work with and process real evidence, show this on the air. Have the real evidence shown being analized on the air as part of an episode. If the evidence was to be analized for the state in a trial the state would pay and if it was for the defense the defense would pay.
Enough training= BA or BS in chemistry/biology/physics That's why the actors wouldn't have enough training.
Depending on the popularity of the TV show, the defense would have an absolute fit with this idea. The last thing they want is the whole nation to see the graphic/bloody/actual evidence related to their case. The graphic nature of some of the evidence would "prejudice" the jury against the defendant. The jury being able to "see the evidence" and be educated about the process relating to the analysis is something the defense would probably object to as well. This is why anyone with any prior knowledge related to the type of scientific testing, or who has sat on a jury in a similar case, is usually excluded from the jury pool. It is MUCH too difficult for the defense to produce "reasonable doubt" with an informed, educated jury. --Well, that's my take on the matter. If I were someone who had to work under the camera (since I'm not an actor), I'd complain up a storm as well!
So, since I'm a chem major with a fairly decent background in the testing processes (especially equipment), I would not be allowed to serve on a jury?
I would think the defense would have you on their "probably not" list. Depending on how many other people they would like to have less, you might get dropped off. It definately lowers your chances - if it is a case involving instrumental analysis. Now something like firearms identification, latent print comparison or questioned documents, you probably wouldn't be picked on due to your education.