The difference there is the evidence is usually quite easy to understand. You don't need to know how DNA is matched to know that there is a DNA match. You also don't need to understand entropy to grasp that if glass is shattered inside the house, then the window was broken from the outside.

However you /DO/ need to understand prior art to rule in a patent dispute. There's no escaping that.

Technically minded people like us often bitch about how the mass media publish misleading "facts" (and often complete fallacies) due to their lack of technical understanding. Yet here we have a jury ignorantly making billion dollar decisions.

It's a bit like asking a group of hair dressers to officially confirm or deny whether CERN's "faster than light" neutrinos were a calculation error or not.