Comment by fnordprefect

A few points:

1. At least in Australia, where I work, most judges are appointed in their 50s and 60s, meaning those currently on the bench likely went to law school in the 70s at the latest. Computer classes were relatively rare, and most lawyers back then did their degrees in Arts and Law. Science/Law degrees did not become popular (relatively speaking; they're still a distinct minority of lawyers) until the late 90s. That cohort has not yet been appointed to the bench.

2. Judges do have associates or tipstaffs (in the U.S. they're called "clerks"), and there are a decent number who have STEM degrees. They can, to some extent, assist the judges in understanding the issues so as to work out what questions they need to ask to educate themselves and to bring out the issues in the case.

3. Managing STEM issues in cases (and this is not just confined to software but includes science generally, as many cases involve chemistry, biology and physics) is generally done by lawyers who have relevant degrees. Generally speaking, we know enough to stop it going off the rails, and we try to pick experts who know and can explain the concepts to non-technical judges. We try to educate them, and de-jargonify the issues where appropriate. This is not that different from picking lawyers with shipping expertise in shipping cases, insurance expertise in insurance cases, etc.

4. Thankfully, we don't have juries for civil trials other than sometimes in defamation cases. Frankly, the use of juries in civil litigation in American courts is an anachronism that is pretty astonishing to non-US lawyers. (It's up there with electing some judges.) I think this is the real problem at the level of fact-finding. Testimony has to be aimed not at intelligent, well-educated judges who have an open mind and are trying to learn issues about coding (or the function of mRNA, or stereochemistry, or hydrostatic forces, or any other specialist area like forensic accounting, or how banks do their daily reconciliations with each other etc), but at the people who were unable to dodge jury duty. The idea that a case of any significance is left to a jury is unfathomable to me.