"It is most certainly not the job of a juror to go away and do a little research, with the possible exception of if there is some sort of formal exam at the end of this piece of research. Call it a law degree if you will. ;)"
That's a classic "argument from authority" (as is your IT support argument - surprise, surprise I also have worked in IT and for a long time - anecdotes about the damage caused by those with a little knowledge can equally be counteracted with the damage done by the completely naive computer user - or even being able to discuss problems with them).
Anyway, I think I ought to point out that a law degree qualifies people in the law. It doesn't in itself qualify them in statistics, science, finance, forensics, psychology or a whole host of other technical subjects. In particular, becoming a barrister makes you an advocate. It trains and picks out those that can use tools of persuasion, like emotional arguments, the subtle undermining of credibility of witnesses, dealing in spurious certainties and the like. Successful barristers are something like legally trained actors - knowing how to deal with people in the context of the court's arcane laws. It's no coincidence that government and the top echelons of industry are stuffed to the gills with lawyer/advocates; people who know how to manipulate and persuade. Tony Blair, a man of somewhat limited intellectual capability, was a superb advocate and manipulator of people (if you doubt, that, read the hatchet job that Robert Harris did on him in the scarcely disguised portrait of Blair in his book Ghost).
But back to the possibly even more pernicious subject of expert witnesses. They too often plea the "argument from authority" position. These are not theoretical concerns - one of those (the Sally Clarke and like cases) I've already mentioned. Another example is the disgraceful case of Shirley McKie, a policewoman wrongly accused of perjury. The case hinged totally on expert witnesses from the Scottish Criminal Record Office testifying that her thumbprint was found at a murder scene. The police had been keen on eliminating unidentified prints as it provided a potential line of defence for the accused. As is routine in these cases, the prints were all checked against serving officers, and this thumbprint was identified as belonging to Shirley McKie, a policewoman who had been in the area. However, on being challenged, she maintained that she had not entered the house. Not only was she sacked by the police force, she was prosecuted for perjury in 1999. The most pertinent point here, was that the "expert witnesses" from the Scottish Criminal Record Office flawed identification of the thumbprint was defended on the grounds that they were the experts, and mere laymen would not be able to appreciate their years of skills. In fact it was no such thing - the basis of finger print matching is fairly straightforward and, for a large part, is a matter of judgment and not science. The basic criteria are not defined statistically in a truly objective way - it's a game of probabilities, especially with partial prints. In this case it was clear to all that the finger print matching was highly uncertain once the basic principles of the process were established (and it was no small thing - three witnesses from the Scottish Criminal Record Office all testified the same). This case is to be subject to a public enquiry, such are the implications.
Back to IT. We might also look at all the false convictions (and the suicides) following the highly flawed "Operation Ore" said to have identified thousands of users of child porn in the UK. Many people were convicted (and even more had lives destroyed) by accusation, and what is worse, cases that went through courts on faulty expert analysis. Again the line from the prosecutors was an "Argument from authority" one - that the expert's view was sacrosanct and a mere layman (which include the lawyers) couldn't be expected to understand the logic. Trust me - I'm an expert was the line.
So I rest my case. Of course IT people make crap advocates, so I don't expect this to sway any jury. I don't believe that that most lawyers make great seekers of truth. It is just not an analytical subject in the sense that a scientist would recognise. Indeed most scientists are not favoured by lawyers as expert witness - they tend to be too measured and apply too many caveats. Lawyers prefer the type of scientist-expert witness that has a clear view, a theory, a line that they will argue. Eventually the some of the worst of these "scientific" zealouts get found out, but only after huge damage has been done to people and lives. Without educated people who can analyse what they are told, then we are lost.
Out best defense is an educated (and self-educating) populace, but I will readily admit that in a world which will listen to the crack-pot views of Prince Charles, that the average jury might not contain many such people.