The jury system is a joke

[321Mike]

I just finished participating in a mock trial. A day and a half of lawyer presentations, then an afternoon of deliberation to reach a verdict. There were 30 people altogether and we split into groups of 10 to deliberate.

What a bunch of morans! I had an idea they were a little slow by the stupid questions they asked during the presentations - despite the fact everybody was told NOT to ask any questions during them. The case was interesting, and the plaintiff made some good points. But, the defendant was clearly in the right. I went into the deliberation expecting some idiocy and I got it. There was one person that agreed with me. The other 8 were adamant that the defendant (a very big company) be severly punished. They wanted to give the plaintiff (a family with an injured child) about 50% more compensatory damages than they asked for and double the punitive damages.

I had planned to just go along to get out of there faster, but I couldn't believe the stupidity. I kept referring to documents presented by the defendant - I might as well have been speaking Greek. My fellow mock jurors failed to understand and remember one bit of the real evidence in the case. All they could remember were a bunch of video clips. Some that supposedly showed why the product was defective and one highly edited clip of a deposition that made one of the defendant's engineers look like a jackass. I tried to talk about evidence and all they could say was, "What if it were your child? You wouldn't think 100 million is too much if it was your child!" Then they would all nod in agreement as if they had said something profound.

I'm glad it was just a mock trial, but I'm sure the real jury will be just as ridiculous.

[4_2_it]

At least we now know the current whereabouts of the OJ and Micheal Jackson jurors.

[tonypaladino]

weclome to the American justice system, where you are judged by people too stupid to get out of jury duty.

If I were ever accused of a crime where people might have undue sympathy for my accuser, I would probably opt to waive my right to a jury, and have a trial by judge.

[coffeecrazy1]

[ QUOTE ]
I just finished participating in a mock trial. A day and a half of lawyer presentations, then an afternoon of deliberation to reach a verdict. There were 30 people altogether and we split into groups of 10 to deliberate.

What a bunch of morans! I had an idea they were a little slow by the stupid questions they asked during the presentations - despite the fact everybody was told NOT to ask any questions during them. The case was interesting, and the plaintiff made some good points. But, the defendant was clearly in the right. I went into the deliberation expecting some idiocy and I got it. There was one person that agreed with me. The other 8 were adamant that the defendant (a very big company) be severly punished. They wanted to give the plaintiff (a family with an injured child) about 50% more compensatory damages than they asked for and double the punitive damages.

I had planned to just go along to get out of there faster, but I couldn't believe the stupidity. I kept referring to documents presented by the defendant - I might as well have been speaking Greek. My fellow mock jurors failed to understand and remember one bit of the real evidence in the case. All they could remember were a bunch of video clips. Some that supposedly showed why the product was defective and one highly edited clip of a deposition that made one of the defendant's engineers look like a jackass. I tried to talk about evidence and all they could say was, "What if it were your child? You wouldn't think 100 million is too much if it was your child!" Then they would all nod in agreement as if they had said something profound.

I'm glad it was just a mock trial, but I'm sure the real jury will be just as ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's the thing, though: YOU are the reason that there is virtue in the jury system. Juries are not decided by a majority decision...they must be unanimous. Therefore, as long as someone dissents, then conversation must continue. Otherwise, you have a lynch mob. As long as you stood your ground, the morans could scream until they were blue in the face about the "children," and it wouldn't matter towards deciding the fate of the defendant, except maybe reinforcing your desire to do the right thing.

And, call me a bastard if you want, but I would say that 100 million would be too much for my unemployed, non-contributing-to-society child.

[xadrez]

You've convinced me, lets get rid of the jury system and go back to tribunals and arbitrary convictions and executions.

[Randy_Refeld]

[ QUOTE ]
Juries are not decided by a majority decision...they must be unanimous. Therefore, as long as someone dissents, then conversation must continue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this true in civil cases? I think what he was talking about is more likely to occur in a a civil matter as that is about money nad "sticking it to the deep pocketed corporation."

[stabn]

[ QUOTE ]

Here's the thing, though: YOU are the reason that there is virtue in the jury system. Juries are not decided by a majority decision...they must be unanimous


[/ QUOTE ]

Please leave the thread. You do not know what you are talking about.

[4_2_it]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Juries are not decided by a majority decision...they must be unanimous. Therefore, as long as someone dissents, then conversation must continue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this true in civil cases? I think what he was talking about is more likely to occur in a a civil matter as that is about money nad "sticking it to the deep pocketed corporation."

[/ QUOTE ]

Has to unanimous, but juror can allocate between the parties. Also in civil cases, there is no reasonable doubt standard. The standard is a preponderance of the evidence which is what leads to the allocation of blame.

[Homer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Here's the thing, though: YOU are the reason that there is virtue in the jury system. Juries are not decided by a majority decision...they must be unanimous


[/ QUOTE ]

Please leave the thread. You do not know what you are talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the same amount of words, you could have just told him what his mistake was. I'd be interested too. Is it majority for civil trials or something? I don't know. I guess I will leave the thread.

[tonypaladino]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Here's the thing, though: YOU are the reason that there is virtue in the jury system. Juries are not decided by a majority decision...they must be unanimous


[/ QUOTE ]

Please leave the thread. You do not know what you are talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the same amount of words, you could have just told him what his mistake was. I'd be interested too. Is it majority for civil trials or something? I don't know. I guess I will leave the thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes most Civil cases can be decided by a certain majority of the jurors (not sure what the percent is). Criminal cases require a unanumous decision. And the other poster was right, while in a criminal trial there has to be proff beyond a reasonable doubt, in a civil case only a preponderance of evidence is necessary, which in simple terms, someone can be found guilty if it is more likely than not that that are.

[JinX11]

[ QUOTE ]

Here's the thing, though: YOU are the reason that there is virtue in the jury system. Juries are not decided by a majority decision...they must be unanimous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here the thing, though: YOU watch too much Law & Order: SVU and are making terribly inaccurate statements.

[Los Feliz Slim]

Without more details about the case, it would be impossible to judge who's right in this specific situation. The simple fact that they weren't all agreeing with you isn't enough to sway my opinion on their, or your, intelligence. The jury, so to speak, is still out on that subject.

[stabn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Here's the thing, though: YOU are the reason that there is virtue in the jury system. Juries are not decided by a majority decision...they must be unanimous


[/ QUOTE ]

Please leave the thread. You do not know what you are talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the same amount of words, you could have just told him what his mistake was. I'd be interested too. Is it majority for civil trials or something? I don't know. I guess I will leave the thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

Below is a quote that outlines some criminal/civial trial differences. Asking questions about what is required is a lot different than stating things as fact.

[ QUOTE ]

2. Burdens of Proof
In order to win a case in court, the party making the charge of wrongdoing must meet a burden of proof. The weight of the burden depends on the type of trial -- civil or criminal -- and sometimes on the specific charge. In criminal trials, the burden of proof is reasonable doubt, which means that a normal person should not have any serious doubt about the truth of the charges. Reasonable doubt is sometimes characterized as 95% certainty about the verdict. In civil trials, the burden of proof is usually the much weaker preponderance of the evidence, meaning that a normal person weighing all of the relevant evidence would consider the charges more likely true than not. Preponderance of the evidence is sometimes characterized as 51% certainty. Finally, in a small handful of cases (such as patent infringement and termination of parental rights) an intermediate burden called clear and convincing evidence is used. Clear and convincing evidence is sometimes characterized as 75% certainty.
The different burdens of proof are loosely reflected in the number of jurors required to reach a verdict. In the federal system and in almost every State, unanimity is required in criminal trials. In civil trials, unanimity is sometimes but not generally required; the exact number of jurors needed to render a verdict differs among jurisdictions. (The number of members on a jury also differs substantially among jurisdictions. In criminal trials, 12 is the usual number, but it is sometimes lower. In civil trials, smaller juries are more common. Juries almost always have at least 6 members.)


[/ QUOTE ]

I've bolded a couple of items that apply to this thread.

[coffeecrazy1]

I stand corrected, then. Leaving thread now.

[rusellmj]

[ QUOTE ]

The other 8 were adamant that the defendant (a very big company) be severly punished. They wanted to give the plaintiff (a family with an injured child) about 50% more compensatory damages than they asked for and double the punitive damages.
I tried to talk about evidence and all they could say was, "What if it were your child? You wouldn't think 100 million is too much if it was your child!"

[/ QUOTE ]

This is referred to as deep pocket syndrome. My company deals with it on a regular basis.
People look at a big company and a "defensless" plaintiff and say "they can afford it, who cares."

[Rockatansky]

I'll give $20 to the first person who can post a link to an empirical study that demonstrates that the tort system systematically overcompensates plaintiffs.

[Rockatansky]

Just to get things started, here is a link to a page that discusses a RAND study. The study found that, while plaintiffs with minor injuries are often slightly overcompensated, plaintiffs with economic losses in excess of $100,000 are compensated at a rate of about 9%.

Of course, these findings pale in comparison to the hand-waving, anecdotal arguments put forth by the "jury system is out of control" crowd.

Link (http://www.house.gov/jec/tort/auto/auto.htm)

[stabn]

[ QUOTE ]
Just to get things started, here is a link to a page that discusses a RAND study. The study found that, while plaintiffs with minor injuries are often slightly overcompensated, plaintiffs with economic losses in excess of $100,000 are compensated at a rate of about 9%.

Of course, these findings pale in comparison to the hand-waving, anecdotal arguments put forth by the "jury system is out of control" crowd.

[/ QUOTE ]

You forgot your link.

[Rockatansky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just to get things started, here is a link to a page that discusses a RAND study. The study found that, while plaintiffs with minor injuries are often slightly overcompensated, plaintiffs with economic losses in excess of $100,000 are compensated at a rate of about 9%.

Of course, these findings pale in comparison to the hand-waving, anecdotal arguments put forth by the "jury system is out of control" crowd.

[/ QUOTE ]

You forgot your link.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks /images/graemlins/smile.gif

I tend to get a little worked up over this, obviously.

[stabn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just to get things started, here is a link to a page that discusses a RAND study. The study found that, while plaintiffs with minor injuries are often slightly overcompensated, plaintiffs with economic losses in excess of $100,000 are compensated at a rate of about 9%.

Of course, these findings pale in comparison to the hand-waving, anecdotal arguments put forth by the "jury system is out of control" crowd.

[/ QUOTE ]

You forgot your link.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks /images/graemlins/smile.gif

I tend to get a little worked up over this, obviously.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes i can tell.

[chadplusplus]

To offer some contrast:

In the particular county in which I am soon to begin practicing (and in which I have been clerking for several years), juries are particularly hard on plaintiffs consistently under compensating for injuries.

For instance, my firm just had a case where liability was stipulated. We offered definitive evidence of loss of past and future wages, and expert opinion on long term pain and disability. Yet, the jury returned an amount of damages barely adequate to compensate for medicals. Unfortunately, I was not involved with the case enough to see such things as the special interrogatories to the jury so I can not state specifically how they allocated damages.

The point is: While some jurisdictions/juries may be allegedly overcompensating plaintiffs, others are consistently undercompensating.

The whole mock trial thing, while it may offer insights into the jury system, does not accurately represent the dynamics of a real jury. For instance, while in law school, our jury pool for our mock trials were selected from undergrad students - obviously not a fair and accurate representation of the general public. And I suspect that the mock trial in the OP was conducted under similar circumstances.

[Zoelef]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll give $20 to the first person who can post a link to an empirical study that demonstrates that the tort system systematically overcompensates plaintiffs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously, I don't know what you're talking about.

Sincerely,
Karen Santorum

[AceHigh]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm glad it was just a mock trial, but I'm sure the real jury will be just as ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

That sounds about the same as my experience with jury trials. Logic, justice and truth take a back seat to emotion and prejudice.

Very discouraging.

[321Mike]

[ QUOTE ]
The whole mock trial thing, while it may offer insights into the jury system, does not accurately represent the dynamics of a real jury. For instance, while in law school, our jury pool for our mock trials were selected from undergrad students - obviously not a fair and accurate representation of the general public. And I suspect that the mock trial in the OP was conducted under similar circumstances.

[/ QUOTE ]

This one was different. They were meticulous about selecting people that would represent a typical jury in this area. I only know that because I have a friend that works with the company that help put it together (and got me into it also). They went through over 500 5 page questionnaires to select the 30 that would participate. They also paid us very well so they would get the 30 they wanted and to make sure we took it seriously. They also spared no expense in the facilities used as well as the evidence presentation. The lawyers that argued the cases were outstanding. The only area they cut corners was taking only 2 8-hour days instead of the usual 3-4 weeks for the whole trial.

By the way, according to the jury instructions we were given, we had to come to a unanimous decision on the liability and the awards. Also, there were two defendants in the case and one had to take 100% responsibility. If we found 1 party responsible, the other was off the hook and vice versa. They explained that is the law in this jurisdiction. Considering how hard they worked to make the it authentic, I can't imagine they would fudge that part.

[Rockatansky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm glad it was just a mock trial, but I'm sure the real jury will be just as ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

That sounds about the same as my experience with jury trials. Logic, justice and truth take a back seat to emotion and prejudice.

Very discouraging.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just want to add that I agree with you in that I am not defending the jury system as being ideal - it is far from it. I just wanted to point out that people who claim that civil jury trials overcompensate tort plaintiffs are either misinformed or lying.

I also can't help but to add one more thing - if you don't think that a jury is fit to allocate liability in a civil trial, why do you think that a jury is fit to sentence a man to die?

[astroglide]

i don't like to think about this sort of thing

[AceHigh]

[ QUOTE ]
I also can't help but to add one more thing - if you don't think that a jury is fit to allocate liability in a civil trial, why do you think that a jury is fit to sentence a man to die?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think juries work well at all, criminal or civil. I don't think they are good at dispencing justice or deciding guilt and innocence.