It's been a long time, far too long. But the rush of non-language-related work has left your host quite dry, and for a while, he's felt like he had nothing to say. That's why it's something of a relief that a very special event finally has given SC something to write about again. That event took place over the last 3 business days (Thursday, Friday, Monday), and was the first time ever that SC reported for jury service (not to say the first time he was summoned, but he'd been excused on all previous occasions). Your host was picked to a jury, and took very careful notes, which the judge permitted him to keep. Alas, this was not true of the all-too-rapidly read jury instructions, which has some unfortunate consequences for a later post, but that will be explained in due time.
In any event, in order to both gather my thoughts appropriately and to maximize the use to which this experience may be put, I will structure this into four posts; today's, introducing the dramatis personae and their opening gambits, one each for the two sides and their often-strained relationships to the plain meaning of language, and a concluding post discussing the deliberation process. Although the case will now enter the public record (no court reporter was present to transcribe the proceedings, but they were recorded electronically, and presumably at least the verdict will be published), pseudonyms will be used to protect the guilty and the comically inept (by and large the same folks). Aside from the names, everything that follows represents the events of the trial to the best of my ability.
Our players are:
- Mr. P., the Plaintiff, who alleges that a bike accident he had in a parking lot is the fault of the lot's owner, and that he is accordingly entitled to damages.
- Stores-R-Us, the Defendant, a company which owns and operates the mall, in their capacity as the managers of the parking lot.
- Keystone Security, the private security firm contracted to provide security services at the mall, and employers of...
- Lt. Clouseau, a mere sergeant at the time of the accident, eyewitness for the defendant.
- Jessica Rabbit, girlfriend of Mr. P., eyewitness for the plaintiff.
- Mr. Marshall Clark, the plaintiff's counsel.
- Mr. Peterson Ryder, the defendant's counsel.
- Dr. Banana Peel, J.D., Ph.D., an expert in slip-and-fall cases whose handbook on these matters is in its 9th edition, testifying for the plaintiff.
- Mr. Kash Andkarry, a retail operations consultant and former grocery store manager, testifying for the defendant.
- Dr. Chop Yougood, a chiropractor, testifying for the plaintiff.
- Judge Job, a man who has had to put up with far more nonsense than any human being should have to bear.
- Does 1-12 Inclusive, the other 11 jurors plus the alternate.
- Your Host, starring as himself.
Our adventure begins with the jury selection process, when 27 complete strangers all showed up in the same room in a Beverly Hills courthouse last Thursday morning. While some of the group had prior experience serving as jurors, by and large this was a new and mildly frightening experience. We had been reassurred in the summons that "most trials" are over in 5 days. But the O.J. trial dragged on for a full year! And the Menendez brothers went 7 months! Surely, we would all be equally unfortunate!
As it turned out, the docket was rather thin for the day, and so after watching a ludicrous video promising lifelong friendships with our fellow jurors, we were all ushered into a small courtroom with a gallery inadequate to the throngs of TV reporters who would breathlessly spend hours of primetime television analyzing our every blink and yawn for clues toward the ultimate verdict. Shortly after, Judge Job appeared to dash our dreams of a year of sequestered vacation and free meals at taxpayer expense -- the trial was a civil action relating to a slip-and-fall accident, and was expected to conclude no later than Tuesday. In fact, warned the judge, if it did not conclude by Tuesday, he would dismiss the jury and invite the attorneys to never discuss this matter in a courtroom again. Clearly, the judge already knew that, like Oakland, there wasn't much there there.
The lawyers then were permitted to proceed to their examination of the jury pool. Mr. Clark, the plaintiff's attorney, began by asking anyone in the room who did not believe that chiropractors provided any medically useful services to raise their hand. Mindful of Radagast's inveighing agains the field, and your host's own skepticism of their utility, SC nevertheless chose to parse the question as asking whether or not we believed all of their services, and not merely those specifically taught at chiropractic schools only, to be useless. On the grounds that some of their services were identical to those performed by physical therapists, which your host had profitably used in the past, his hand stayed down.
Next were a series of questions which your host had to answer in the affirmative: Ever had a bike accident? Seen a doctor for it? Received follow-up treatments? Yes to all -- SC spent 2 months paying twice-weekly visits to physical therapists after back spasms resulting from a bicycle crash during his freshman year in college. Was anyone sued as a result? No -- the bike was successfully crashed without any assistance beyond that from its rider, thank you. Finally, since Mrs. SC's occupation had to be volunteered, did she work with trauma patients? Well, she had just wrapped up a rotation in an emergency room that very day, and this fact was communicated to the lawyers.
With these questions asked of everyone, peremptory challenges began to be issued: a retired policeman was dismissed, as were a dentist, several engineers, and a pair of Hollywood producers (nobody you've heard of; SC interpreted their claims to mean that they worked in the produce departments of Hollywood grocery stores). When 10 jurors had been dismissed, the judge asked both attorneys if they were satisfied with the composition of the jury; receiving "yes" answers from both, he proceeded to dismiss the remaining members of the pool.
After selection and a break for lunch, opening statements were made by both sides. Your host's notes indicate that the battle was decided at this early stage, by the rhetorical choices made by each lawyer. Does this sound prejudicial? We'll wrap up today's post by briefly examining what each one did, and how it set the stage for the proceedings that followed.
Mr. Clark opened the case for the plaintiff with a very brief summary of the facts, resulting in four bullet points in SC's notes:
- One day in December of 2004, Mr. P. rode his bike into the parking lot of a mall owned by Stores-R-Us.
- Mr. P. claims he lost control of the bike.
- Mr. P. suffered oil spots on his face and clothing.
- Mr. P. was treated by a hospital ER, and later, by a chiropractor.
As Mr. P. would himself later say many times on the stand, "That's all -- let's leave it at that." This was the extent of the evidence introduced to us. Mr. Clark closed his statement by observing that we would hear many negative things about his client, and that we should try to keep an open mind to the facts. If you can deduce from this material alone why you should particularly care about oil spots or give someone money based on their clothes becoming soiled, you are exactly who Mr. Clark needed on that jury more than the people he got. Just by listening to Mr. P.'s own representation, the jurors were led to believe: 1) his injuries were not serious, 2) he visited multiple health care providers in spite of (1), and 3) Mr. P. is a man with problems. The plaintiff's one chance to establish credibility with no intrusions from the defense had gone utterly wasted.
In contrast, your host took 2 pages of notes on the opening statement of Mr. Ryder, the defendant's counsel. This began with his claim that he would prove 4 things:
- Stores-R-Us properly maintains their properties.
- Stores-R-Us was not notified of any issue with their property.
- Mr. P. was intoxicated during the events in question.
- Mr. P. suffered no significant injuries.
Mr. Ryder then proceeded to outline facts that would be introduced as evidence in support of these claims: that Mr. P. is a convicted felon, that Mr. P. is a frequent pursuer of personal injury claims, that Lt. Clouseau would testify that the parking lot was inspected hourly, that Mr. P. made terrorist threats against Stores-R-Us, that Mr. P. left the ER without being treated, that Mr. P. told Dr. Yougood he had no previous history of back or neck pain even though this is now his fourth such lawsuit, that Mr. P. claims to have been shot and stabbed in the back in previous incidents, that Mr. P. never pursued treatment for his alleged chronic pain, and that after a car accident subsequent (by a full year) to the incident in question, Mr. P. told another doctor that he had no prior back or neck injuries, and felt fine.
Your host's notes conclude with a warning he wrote to himself: "watch to see how much of this is substantiated". That was a lot of material -- and if even just part of it was true, it would be very hard to credit a claim of personal injury. Mr. Ryder basically laid out a verbal contract with the jury, inviting us to side with him if he proved his claims (he did not say this explicitly, but this was the effect of the manner in which he presented them). A lay reader might object that the burden of proving claims rests with the plaintiff, not the defendant, but as we were to be told later, in a case of this sort, our findings needed to be based on a "preponderance of the evidence" -- for a given claim X, is it more likely to be true or not true? In laying out their respective cases, Mr. Clark squandered his opportunity to present Mr. P.'s claims in a favorable light, while Mr. Ryder planted the seeds of doubt from the very beginning. Over the next two days of argument, it would prove very difficult to receive new witnesses without viewing them through the prism of doubt placed before us by Mr. Ryder.
Tomorrow: Mr. Clark starts from behind, and finishes further back than that.
EXcellent post! I await the next installment with baited breath (ok, well, snickering to myself. But between snickers it's baited.)
Posted by: hh | October 17, 2006 at 06:05 PM