The Washington Times does some reporting on John Edwards’s trial practice in North Carolina. (“Edwards’ malpractice suits leave bitter taste”, Aug. 16). Reporter Charles Hurt talks to local doctors about Edwards’ cerebral palsy cases and also relates the following story about the role of jury selection in one of the future senator’s prominent cases:
“In 1991 [in Wake County], he won $2.2 million for the estate of a woman who hanged herself in a hospital after being removed from suicide watch. … During jury selection, Mr. Edwards asked potential jurors whether they could hold a doctor responsible for the suicide of their patients.
“I got a lot of speeches from potential jurors who said they did not understand how that doctor could be responsible,” Mr. Edwards recalled in an interview shortly after the trial. Those persons were excluded from the jury.
The article doesn’t say whether Mr. Edwards had to use up his peremptory challenges against the skeptical jurors or was able to get them purged for cause. Either way, it’s a reminder of one way the political process is both more open to diversity and more responsive to public opinion than the trial process: you can’t eject citizens from the voter pool just for holding the wrong sorts of views.
Comments are closed.