Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was called a couple times. The first time I was picked for a few but didn't get chosen. There was one other juror who kept asking me out. I told him if his wife would go along with it I'd think about it. He didn't ask again.
The second one was awful. A wrongful death suit where a young mother died in a car accident & the jury's job was to decide what the children would receive. (She was out with coworkers & was not the driver).
She'd been a high paid employee & the lawyer tried to show what she would have made if she'd lived.
By the time it was over I wanted to wring some of their necks. They just couldn't get their minds around the numbers. One said it was karma & there should be no payment. Another said the woman shouldn't have been out with coworkers & there should be no payment.
Those of us who had brains did our best but finally we settled for a lower number than we wanted to give them just to get it over with. I just hope the lawyer repealed.
The problem with those kinds of cases is something you're not told about; her insurance limits. The chances are your verdict was at or over the insurance limits so do rest easy. And doubtless the irresponsible person who caused the deaths has few or no assets.
The problem with those kinds of cases is something you're not told about; her insurance limits. The chances are your verdict was at or over the insurance limits so do rest easy. And doubtless the irresponsible person who caused the deaths has few or no assets.
We were told after it was over that the person responsible was a coworker so he should have had assets. I don't know for sure if he did or not. We were not told how much the other driver was at fault. But it was an accident between a high end SUV & a semi.
I was called a couple times. The first time I was picked for a few but didn't get chosen. There was one other juror who kept asking me out. I told him if his wife would go along with it I'd think about it. He didn't ask again.
The second one was awful. A wrongful death suit where a young mother died in a car accident & the jury's job was to decide what the children would receive. (She was out with coworkers & was not the driver).
She'd been a high paid employee & the lawyer tried to show what she would have made if she'd lived.
By the time it was over I wanted to wring some of their necks. They just couldn't get their minds around the numbers. One said it was karma & there should be no payment. Another said the woman shouldn't have been out with coworkers & there should be no payment.
Those of us who had brains did our best but finally we settled for a lower number than we wanted to give them just to get it over with. I just hope the lawyer repealed.
I thank you for reporting this experience. I try many civil cases as an attorney in the courts.
This juror or jurors should have been weeded out by the voir dire process. If she really believes that there should never be compensation for surviving children following the wrongful death of a parent she had no business serving on that jury. I can imagine half a dozen questions that if answered honestly would have lead to her dismissal for cause from the panel.
I'm going to suggest some approaches if any person ever finds themselves in a similar situation. They would be:
1. Insisting the judge be informed by a note that a juror has taken the position that he/she cannot award compensation under any circumstances and that you believe they answered the voir dire questions dishonestly.
2. Turning to the juror during deliberations and asking them point blank what they are doing on this jury. Remind them of the voir dire questions and what their answers were. I might go so far as to ask them if they consider themselves to be an honest person or not.
3. Reminding other jurors that the vote of someone like that is not necessary because a unanimous verdict is not required.
Rather than agreeing to a low verdict in a situation like this, I will submit that not being able to agree on a verdict at all would be better. The case will certainly be retried by a different panel (or settled) if a verdict cannot be reached. It is very difficult to overturn a low jury verdict. Judges give the jury's decision a great deal of weight and latitude.
In any event, I find it distressing a jury could be this heartless to the children of a dead parent. I can see choosing to value the parent at financially less money than the lawyers are suggesting. I cannot see a total derogation of the duty to find for the plaintiff and award compensation at all. Its just one more sign to me of a sort of social breakdown in this country. Some truly don't care about others--even children.
Do you mind sharing how much was awarded?
Last edited by markg91359; 11-03-2016 at 11:24 AM..
I got called quiet a few times but I broke my coccyx bone years ago and I'm still unable to sit upright for long periods of time. It doesn't affect my day to day life but I couldn't imagine sitting upright in a chair for hours without having to move around, so I got my doctor to write a note and now I'm excused as a juror completely.
The worst part is If in the event I was ever in a trial, I'd want a juror just like me so I'd love to be on a jury. But there's no way I could sit in one position that long.
Yes, I had the same concern as I have spinal problems and can't sit on hard chairs. I asked if I could bring my lumbar pillow and they said OK. When we got into the courtroom for voir dire, I checked out the jurors' seats and they were definitely comfortable and ergonomic, not like the wooden benches in the rest of the room. If I would have anticipated a problem, I would have raised my hand and brought it up to the Judge.
I thank you for reporting this experience. I try many civil cases as an attorney in the courts.
This juror or jurors should have been weeded out by the voir dire process. If she really believes that there should never be compensation for surviving children following the wrongful death of a parent she had no business serving on that jury. I can imagine half a dozen questions that if answered honestly would have lead to her dismissal for cause from the panel.
I'm going to suggest some approaches if any person ever finds themselves in a similar situation. They would be:
1. Insisting the judge be informed by a note that a juror has taken the position that he/she cannot award compensation under any circumstances and that you believe they answered the voir dire questions dishonestly.
2. Turning to the juror during deliberations and asking them point blank what they are doing on this jury. Remind them of the voir dire questions and what their answers were. I might go so far as to ask them if they consider themselves to be an honest person or not.
3. Reminding other jurors that the vote of someone like that is not necessary because a unanimous verdict is not required.
Rather than agreeing to a low verdict in a situation like this, I will submit that not being able to agree on a verdict at all would be better. The case will certainly be retried by a different panel (or settled) if a verdict cannot be reached. It is very difficult to overturn a low jury verdict. Judges give the jury's decision a great deal of weight and latitude.
In any event, I find it distressing a jury could be this heartless to the children of a dead parent. I can see choosing to value the parent at financially less money than the lawyers are suggesting. I cannot see a total derogation of the duty to find for the plaintiff and award compensation at all. Its just one more sign to me of a sort of social breakdown in this country. Some truly don't care about others--even children.
Do you mind sharing how much was awarded?
I'm a veteran trial watcher so I'm pretty familiar with what evidence should be considered and what's not evidence or irrelevant. No soon than we started delibs, one woman was bursting with pent-up anger at the victim's (a child's) mother for not being outside to supervise her child. It wasn't relevant as to whether the evidence proved a crime, but it just cast doubt on the mother's testimony, plus the fact she wasn't in the courtroom the whole time when her child is the victim! Anyway, it's frustrating to try go get jurors to just focus on the evidence.
I have been called a couple of times but luckily was able to get dismissed each time so far.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
