The jury system is a joke

[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.