Having just served on a jury, I can say that I've actually gained some confidence in the American justice system and its use of a jury of peers. When it comes down to it, the task for the jury is fairly straightforward, narrow, and well-defined: to examine the facts as laid out in the trial and to objectively execute the law as it is defined at the time while being fair and impartial. Their backgrounds and prior knowledge and experience are not supposed to come into play, and to the extent that the judge and attorneys have chosen a panel of objective, intelligent jurors, their backgrounds really do not and should not matter.

I recently read a comment that framed the law as being software. After my experience, I've come to think of juries as being the computers that run such "software" in the context of a trial: to execute the instructions as handed down by the judge, given the evidence and testimonies as factual inputs and to ultimately output a verdict that follows (as closely as possible) the rules codified in the law.

I feel that the problem really lies in the evidence provided by the expert witness. In this particular case, it sounds like there was an expert witness on both sides, but perhaps one witness was more effective than the other, at least to the jury. To reduce any bias, ideally there are (many) multiple witnesses providing testimony on the same issues, so that the evidence presented will average out to be as close to the factual truth as possible. Unfortunately, that's almost certainly not scalable in the context of a trial.