Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

AVoiceOfReason · 02-09-2006, 08:54 PM

I'm a trial lawyer, but got on the jury panel in the fall of 1999. I got so far as having my name drawn to be one of 12 questioned. It was a domestic battery case, and even though I do a lot of defense work, the state announced I was good for them. The defense attorney kicked me off, under the theory that I was a former prosecutor and was still too conviction oriented. He didn't know how little I think of most claims of domestic abuse or he would have left me on there.

Another time I was called, my former boss (9 years earlier) was the plaintiff's attorney. The judge told us about the case, and asked if any of us knew anything about the facts. I raised my hand a bit sheepishly, and said "I discussed this case at length with (Plaintiff's attorney) right after it was filed." I was booted.

While I'm at it, let me educate potential jurors about a few things.

1. You can bet there IS insurance involved in accident cases. Don't worry about breaking the poor defendant. That high dollar lawyer he has was hired by his insurance company. A plaintiff is not allowed to bring suit against State Farm (assuming it covers the guy that hit him) by name, he has to sue the person. Will there ever be a time when a plaintiff's lawyer puts a lot of time and money into a jury trial where there is no chance of collecting? Yeah, maybe, but not often.

2. A verdict for the plaintiff does NOT cause your insurance rates to go up. Rates are set with a certain percentage of losses to jury verdicts built in.

3. A verdict for pain and suffering is entirely proper. It's hard to equate dollars with physical injury. However, a lot of folks trade pain of a mental sort for a paycheck each week, and we can understand the cost of pain by measuring what we pay to be relieved of it (chiropractors, pain medications, etc.). It's not an exact science, but there's nothing improper about giving someone money that has been in a lot of pain.

4. Lawyers don't normally take half the award, but by the time the attorneys, doctors and expenses are paid, a plaintiff is lucky to wind up with 1/3 of an award in his pocket, sometimes less than that. Assume the plaintiff has to pay back 2/3 of his medical bills and pay 1/3 to 4/10 to his lawyer when deciding a fair verdict.

5. In criminal cases, it's rarely a true "who done it?" The prosecution team doesn't pull names out of a phone book just to put someone on trial. While there is a presumption of innocence for all defendants in the USA, the key in most criminal cases lie in the instructions as to the elements of the offense. The mental state of the defendant is often key.

6. Whenever there are dueling experts, you can safely assume that both have been paid well for their efforts in examining a case. Be on the lookout for those that only testify for plaintiffs or defendants; these may be selling not their time, but their opinions.

That'll do for now. I may think of some others later.

02-09-2006, 08:54 PM	#45 (permalink)
AVoiceOfReason Psycho Location: Greenwood, Arkansas	I'm a trial lawyer, but got on the jury panel in the fall of 1999. I got so far as having my name drawn to be one of 12 questioned. It was a domestic battery case, and even though I do a lot of defense work, the state announced I was good for them. The defense attorney kicked me off, under the theory that I was a former prosecutor and was still too conviction oriented. He didn't know how little I think of most claims of domestic abuse or he would have left me on there. Another time I was called, my former boss (9 years earlier) was the plaintiff's attorney. The judge told us about the case, and asked if any of us knew anything about the facts. I raised my hand a bit sheepishly, and said "I discussed this case at length with (Plaintiff's attorney) right after it was filed." I was booted. While I'm at it, let me educate potential jurors about a few things. 1. You can bet there IS insurance involved in accident cases. Don't worry about breaking the poor defendant. That high dollar lawyer he has was hired by his insurance company. A plaintiff is not allowed to bring suit against State Farm (assuming it covers the guy that hit him) by name, he has to sue the person. Will there ever be a time when a plaintiff's lawyer puts a lot of time and money into a jury trial where there is no chance of collecting? Yeah, maybe, but not often. 2. A verdict for the plaintiff does NOT cause your insurance rates to go up. Rates are set with a certain percentage of losses to jury verdicts built in. 3. A verdict for pain and suffering is entirely proper. It's hard to equate dollars with physical injury. However, a lot of folks trade pain of a mental sort for a paycheck each week, and we can understand the cost of pain by measuring what we pay to be relieved of it (chiropractors, pain medications, etc.). It's not an exact science, but there's nothing improper about giving someone money that has been in a lot of pain. 4. Lawyers don't normally take half the award, but by the time the attorneys, doctors and expenses are paid, a plaintiff is lucky to wind up with 1/3 of an award in his pocket, sometimes less than that. Assume the plaintiff has to pay back 2/3 of his medical bills and pay 1/3 to 4/10 to his lawyer when deciding a fair verdict. 5. In criminal cases, it's rarely a true "who done it?" The prosecution team doesn't pull names out of a phone book just to put someone on trial. While there is a presumption of innocence for all defendants in the USA, the key in most criminal cases lie in the instructions as to the elements of the offense. The mental state of the defendant is often key. 6. Whenever there are dueling experts, you can safely assume that both have been paid well for their efforts in examining a case. Be on the lookout for those that only testify for plaintiffs or defendants; these may be selling not their time, but their opinions. That'll do for now. I may think of some others later. __________________ AVOR A Voice Of Reason, not necessarily the ONLY one.