November 02, 2002

JURY DOCTORING

I've been on jury duty this week, and finally got called in to be questioned by lawyers as a potential juror.

There were six of us in a row of seats facing the lawyers, and a bunch of additional possible jurors still looking on. The case was--believe it or not--a slip and slide. Someone slipped on ice and was suing the homeowner.

Several people were very straightforward in saying they'd be predisposed to vote against the plaintiff, seeing it purely as a nuisance suit. So they were excused. Some people, when asked if they could vote impartially, said, "Uh huh." Or "Sure."

My answers were longer. Much longer. They boiled down to "Uh huh" and "sure" but went into detail. I watched the lawyers' eyes glaze over.

They punted me from the jury...along with a retired police detective, and a landlord. They kept the people who said "Uh huh" and "Sure."

A couple hours later, I went home, and that was it. This is the second time I've been called for jury duty, and the second time nothing came of it.

Isn't this a great legal process?

Uh huh. Sure.

PAD

Posted by Peter David at November 2, 2002 09:58 AM | TrackBack | Other blogs commenting
Comments
Posted by: Jeff Morris at November 2, 2002 12:51 PM

Now, the question is, did you reply in such a manner because you legitimately felt that was the way to answer, or because you knew there wasn't a snowball's chance in hell that they'd take you?

My wife the RN says that lawyers rarely if ever take nurses. They're sharp, observent and can't be easily swayed. Of course, this describes her to a T, but still...

I got called earlier this year for three days and never got called in. Fortunately I had "Sir Apropos of Nothing" handy to pass the time. :)

JSM

Posted by: elf at November 2, 2002 01:54 PM

I brought my copy of Michael Moore's "Stupid White Men" with me to read during the initial waiting time. When it was my turn to be interviewed I made sure to put it on the table where all present could see it. I didn't get picked.

Posted by: John at November 2, 2002 02:29 PM

Exactly. Lawyers want juries they can sway. If the answers to their questions make it clear you're an intelligent person who thinks for themselves...neither lawyer wants to pick you.

Posted by: Luigi Novi at November 2, 2002 03:42 PM

Well, I think it depends on the lawyer. When I went for jury duty, I got picked.

.......

Um, why is everyone snickering?

:)

Posted by: H.G at November 2, 2002 04:02 PM

Man, isnīt the American Sistem Of justice Great or What ?

they actualy want to Know what the peopleīs opinions and people actually participate !

Everytime i heard Stories about jury Duty I remember the First scenes of Superman, the Movie were those people got all that light over them , and GO *guilty*, and itīs jor-elīs turn to Judge And The Panthon Zone came , I Just Canīt wait until people invents the REAL PHANTON ZONE !

Posted by: Greg at November 2, 2002 06:55 PM

They may not have invented a Phantom Zone yet, but Boston is pretty dead past midnight.

Posted by: Jay at November 2, 2002 08:09 PM

Peter, speaking of the legal system, I read that the conviction of the Texas comic store guy got upheld. Will the CBLDF be appealing the US Supreme Court now?

Posted by: Ben Hunt at November 2, 2002 08:32 PM

To get out of jury duty, simply do what Homer Simpson does, say that you are prejudiced against all races and creeds. If on the off chance you are picked, you can make little glasses with eyes on them and go to sleep. "Give those to the bailiff. And those. And those.

Seriously, though, the jury system is flawed, but most things in the American system are. We could shift to a French system, with judges acting like detectives, actively searching for the guilt or innocence of the accused, or a system like Pakistan, where you can have a wall collapsed upon you if you are found guilty. Or we could simply stay with the status quo.

And those. And those.

Ben

Posted by: jESSE at November 2, 2002 11:16 PM

hey david! when are you gonna get around to watching birds of prey, and duly reviewing it?

Posted by: Yves St-Germain at November 3, 2002 09:02 AM

Let's just face it. They don't wanted articulated, smart, perceptive people. Nurses, writers, doctors... anything where you have to be analytical.

it'd make their job to hard.

Posted by: Peter David at November 3, 2002 09:08 AM

>>Now, the question is, did you reply in such a manner because you legitimately felt that was the way to answer, or because you knew there wasn't a snowball's chance in hell that they'd take you?<<

Look, it's always easy to figure out what answers will keep you off a jury. If I didn't want to be on it, I could have just said, "I'd be predisposed for" such and such.

I wasn't interested in lying. But I knew short, inarticulate answers would likely get me on. So by giving full, detailed answers, I knew they most likely would bypass me. But that made it their decision, not mine. My conscience was clear.

PAD

Posted by: Luigi Novi at November 3, 2002 09:48 AM

Well said.

Just out of curiosity, Peter, what does the "A" stand for in "PAD"? I notice you didn't sign the post above with your usual initials, and was curious as to what the initial one stands for.

Posted by: Tom Galloway at November 3, 2002 04:03 PM

As I recall, the A stands for Allen.

As for jury duty, there's the old joke said to a defendent; "Just remember, your fate rests in the hands of twelve people who were too dumb to get out of jury duty".

Was called myself earlier this year. I believe I was around #6 kicked out as a pre-emptory challenge, right after the folk who admitted to actually knowing something about DNA testing at a professional level (hey, it's Silicon Valley), likely because I also behaved as I normally did and asked some questions when something wasn't clear.

Posted by: Stephen Robinson at November 3, 2002 05:55 PM

I start Grand Jury duty tomorrow. I get the feeling I'll be punted, as a coworker and friend was just ripped off (had her ATM card stolen by some scum at her gym) and the police didn't seem interested in helping her. This will probably influence my opinions somewhat.

Still, I would like to be on the jury as I believe it's my civic duty and all, but it seems that opinionated sorts like us don't last long during the jury selection process.

Posted by: Douglass Barre at November 3, 2002 08:59 PM

I'm the only guy I know who (likely from early years spent watching LA Law) actually wants to be on a jury... so what happens? I literally never get called. Once in the last twelve years have I actually made it into a courtroom, and they finished the jury long before I ever got to talk. Bah.

I also have the (in this context only) problem of being married to a minister. Anyone of any strong religious affiliation apparently never gets selected. Defendants figure you're too morally dogmatic to be openminded and prosecutors figure you're too compassionate to be any good.

I'd be a good juror, too... I'm smart, well educated, and avoid the news like the plague. Someone, please... sequester me!

Ahem.

Doug

Posted by: Ed at November 4, 2002 12:48 AM

American law is shaped mostly by common law, which comes about from the American people bringing suits of the same sort and requiring fair, equitable, and -predictable- judgments. What isn't common law is brought via legistlation through the politicians the American people elect. Apparently all the smart people ducking jury duty and complaining about the system aren't doing their job in regulating the system they help control.

Posted by: Ken M. at November 4, 2002 08:24 AM

If intelligent people sat on juries, would the stupid woman who spilled hot coffee on herself have won against McDonalds?

Would idiots who have smoked all their lives have won against the tobacco companies?

Would even 5% of all the lawsuits filed ever go the way of the plaintiff? Hell no...

The jury system should be revamped, with professional jurors, chosen at random from a pool. By professional I mean that these people would have some other job that they get yanked away from to serve jury duty, serving on juries is what they would do for a living (i.e. it's something they WANT to do, not something they're FORCED to do).

And the lawyers wouldn't get to say squat about jury composition, when the lottery ball machine spits out the name of 12 jurors (and a few health-emergency alternates) THOSE ARE THE JURORS. Period.

And maybe go a step further and protect their identites from teh lawyers invovled in the actual cases. The jurors could be reviewed by non-associated lawyers in other cases, but NOT by those actively involved in their trials.

And NO SEQUESTERING under any circumstances, the jurors should not be forced to server more time imprisoned than the criminals they try...

Posted by: David C. at November 4, 2002 10:30 AM

One of the funny things is that people who "shouldn't" get onto juries frequently don't. Several of my old law school professors, *precisely* the sort of people you'd expect to be immediately stricken, have served on juries. And then there's Hollywood producer Peter Guber, who somehow didn't get struck from the Winona Ryder jury....

Personally, I think the best "jury reform" approach would be one of the simplest (albeit expensive) - just give jurors more money. The pittance jurors usually get is almost always worth less than the time lost by a juror. Hence, most jurors will wind up being people for whom time has little value, while others avoid it. More money means less incentive for jury avoidance. It might even be less expensive in the long run, if smarter juries mean fewer cases appealed.

Posted by: Ronald M. at November 4, 2002 10:31 AM

http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm

Posted by: Marc Foxx at November 4, 2002 10:43 AM

I've been called for jury duty 3 times in the last 6 or so years and even though I don't try to not get picked, I've yet to actually sit on a jury. One good thing about Philadelphia's system is the "one trial or one day" policy. If you aren't picked for a jury on your first day of duty, you're done...and they give you your $9 check at the end of the day :)

Posted by: Franklin Harris at November 4, 2002 11:03 AM

I have a host of ideas for jury reform, but my first is to abolish preemptory challenges to jurors. It wouldn't prevent jury stacking, but it might help.

Posted by: Stephen Robinson at November 4, 2002 01:14 PM

Ken M said:

If intelligent people sat on juries, would the stupid woman who spilled hot coffee on herself have won against McDonalds?>>

And here is the truth:

Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passenger seat of her grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonald's coffee in February 1992. Liebeck, now 81, ordered coffee that was served in a styrofoam cup at the drive-through window of a local McDonald's.

After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.) Liebeck placed the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled into her lap.

The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonald's refused.

During discovery, McDonald's produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebeck's. This history documented McDonald's knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard.

McDonald's also said during discovery that, based on a consultant's advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees.

Further, McDonald's quality assurance manager testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degree or above, and that McDonald's coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns would occur, but testified that McDonald's had no intention of reducing the "holding temperature" of its coffee.

Plaintiff's expert, a scholar in thermodynamics as applied to human skin burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus, if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.

McDonald's asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or home, intending to consume it there. However, the company's own research showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving.

McDonald's also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its customers want it that way. The company admitted its customers were unaware that they could suffer third- degree burns from the coffee and that a statement on the side of the cup was not a "warning" but a "reminder" since the location of the writing would not warn customers of the hazard.

The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonald's coffee sales.

Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the local Albuquerque McDonald's had dropped to 158 degrees fahrenheit.

The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 -- or three times compensatory damages -- even though the judge called McDonald's conduct reckless, callous and willful. Subsequent to remittitur, the parties entered a post-verdict settlement.

Posted by: Stephen Robinson at November 4, 2002 01:23 PM

Sorry for the double, but I couldn't let most of this slide:

Ken M:

Would idiots who have smoked all their lives have won against the tobacco companies?>>

This is far more complex than it seems. Yes, it's stupid to smoke, but most of the people who started started when the tobacco companies advertised that it was not dangerous. And once they were hooked, well, it's a little difficult to shake. And the addictive nature of cigarettes were quite possibly *increased* by some companies.

<>

Then they become hardened and desentisized and almost impossibly biased after years of doing this job. Not ideal.

It would also be difficult to ensure that repeat offenders receive a fair trial when they wind up facing jurors who are aware of their past deeds.

<>

And, again, this seems ridiculously unfair: How do you ensure that jurors are not aware of a defendent's criminal past (information not relevant to the current case)? Or that the jury for an tobacco lawsuit does not contain doctors who have treated lung cancer patients or even have had relatives who have died from lung cancer?

You can't just randomly select like that and hope for a fair trial. This needs to be a protracted process, with both the defense and the prosecution ensuring that composition of the jury is as fair as possible.

>

How would you avoid this? Would you really want your trial sped up to avoid sequestering the jury? I suppose you didn't need all that time to fully state your case. Better that you spend some time in a cell with Rock than the jury be inconvenienced.

Posted by: Ken M. at November 5, 2002 08:02 AM

Aww Stephen, did I hit a little nerve with you? Tough.

The jury should NOT be punished for a defendant's trial. Sequestration is NOT acceptable.

And if you're gonna whine "Then they become hardened and desentisized and almost impossibly biased after years of doing this job. Not ideal." Yeah, like people have any respect or love for jury duty now. Get real.

A random jury is A LOT fairer than the jury stacking that goes on now. And hide the jury's identities while we're at it. Only the court knows who the jurors are, not the lawyers, that way they can't pander to them.

Awww, cigarettes are additive? So what? So's alcohol and drugs, and caffeine, and lots of other things. PEOPLE NEED TO TAKE RESPONSIBILTY FOR THEIR OWN LIVES!!!

If you aren't intelligent enough to safely remove the top of a coffee cup without spilling it all over yourself too damn bad. Why the hell are you holding hot coffee in your lap and trying to cream and sugar it in a car anyway?

The reward reduction SHOULD hacve been all the way to ZERO.

And past deeds SHOULD be taken into consideration in trials. Repeat offenders have proven they cannot function in society and need to be permanantly removed from it.

Posted by: ObeeKris at November 6, 2002 04:11 AM

Would everybody who got out of jury duty feel so good about it if they were to find out that the case they missed was one similar to what Jesus Castillo has gone through?

Food for thought.

Posted by: Su at November 10, 2002 06:15 PM

heh, I got the boot from jury duty too. I didn't even make it to voir dire. See, while I was waiting to go to the courtroom, I hung out in a federal building where a security guard decided to open his big trap about the case. I knew more than I was supposed to about the case so I was dismissed. You shoulda seen the defense attorney's face when I mentioned my father was in federal law enforcement. The judge later told me that the defense attorney REALLY wanted me out of there. Good thing too, bc I left island before it went to trial.

luv,

-Su