THE CURRENT PRACTICE IN ENGLAND IS FOR POTENTIAL JURORS TO BE EXCUSED ONLY IF THEY ARE IN SOME WAY CONNECTED WITH THE EVENTS OR PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THE TRIAL. THIS PRACTICE, COUPLED WITH THE REDUCTION IN THE NUMBER OF PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES AVAILABLE TO EACH ACCUSED, HELPS IN THE ESTABLISHMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE JURIES. ALTHOUGH THE WISDOM OF LEAVING DECISIONS REGARDING THE TECHNICAL INTERPRETATION OF LAWS AND EVIDENCE TO A GROUP OF LAY PERSONS (THE JURY) IS AN ISSUE STILL DEBATED, THE USE OF THE LAY JURY DOES REQUIRE ATTORNEYS AND JUDGES TO OPERATE TRIALS AND INTERPRET LAWS AT A LEVEL UNDERSTANDABLE TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC. EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE TENDS TO SHOW THAT JURY VERDICTS ARE INCONSISTENT IN SIMILAR CASES AND THAT EMOTION MAY OVERRIDE CONSIDERATION OF LEGAL ISSUES; HOWEVER, CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE AS TO THE RELIABILITY OF JURY DECISIONS STILL DOES NOT EXIST. THE COST OF THE JURY SYSTEM IS LARGE ENOUGH IN ENGLAND TO RAISE QUESTIONS ABOUT IMPROVED EFFICIENCY. WHILE NO JURIES SMALLER THAN 12 MEMBERS ARE USED IN THE UNITED KINGDOM, THE SUCCESSFUL USE OF SMALLER JURIES IN OTHER COUNTRIES WARRANTS CONSIDERATION. HEAVY CASELOADS AND THE COST OF JURY TRIALS POINT ENGLISH COURTS TOWARD A REDUCTION IN THE TYPES OF OFFENSES THAT CAN BE HEARD BY JURIES, NAMELY, ONLY THOSE CRIMES PARTICULARLY ODIOUS TO THE CITIZENRY. OTHER TYPES OF OFFENSES MIGHT ALSO LOGICALLY BE TRIED BY JURIES, NOTABLY WHERE ISSUES OF PUBLIC MORALITY OR THE ACTIONS OF A 'REASONABLE' PERSON ARE TO BE CONSIDERED. FOOTNOTES ARE PROVIDED. (RCB)