Jonathan Fuchs is mistaken in dismissing the value of lawyers undertaking jury duty (see [2004] Gazette, 8 January, 12).

First, he calls on the US experience.

In that country much time and effort is spent on weeding out of the jury anyone who might not prove sufficiently receptive to the defence case.

That doesn't happen in this country.

Secondly, it doesn't matter whether the advocates - trial lawyers - want another lawyer on the jury or not.

The trial is not being run for their benefit.

Thirdly, the point is not that the lawyer should benefit from his service on the jury - although in my view he certainly would - but that the jury should benefit.

What Mr Fuchs forgets, in his understandably professionally conditioned way, is that a trial worthy of its name will not be a well-played game respecting a highly developed set of rules, but a search for the truth.

Ian Francis, Crown Prosecution Service, and Law Society Council member for Norfolk