He should have raised his hand to correct the judge’s misruling. That would have done it.

Next time I am called, because I am stupid enough to vote, I may decide to serve. I wonder if they have internet access to Overlawyered in jail. I would send messages from there.

I have been excused a dozen times by describing experience in tribunals, as litigant and expert.

Vote if you want to be called. Tell them you know about something to be excused.

It was a painful experience where I watched one attorney make an incorrect hearsay objection, the opposing attorney fail to explain why the objection was wrong, and the judge make the wrong ruling. Everyone was remarkably disrespectful of the jury’s time; we’d go through maybe three hours of testimony a day because witnesses weren’t ready to be scheduled. As a second-alternate, I wasn’t allowed to return to my office as the jury deliberated because they might reach a verdict; this was so even though the attorneys returned to their offices that were a half-hour further away on the 10. As I watched the economic expert stumble through an explanation of net present value, it struck me at that moment that I could step down from the box and, knowing nothing about the case, do a better job than either of the attorneys, the witness, or the judge. The jury (without me) ended up reaching a compromise verdict because of one juror who insisted on payment even as video evidence showed that the plaintiff was faking.

It was a confidence-builder to see that none of these people were starving for lack of work. But not so much a confidence builder that the status quo was an efficient means of resolving disputes.

The lawyers eliminated that wisdom of the crowd advantage to replace it with poor saps who cannot get out of jury duty, are easily manipulated with cheap theatrics. If any juror cannot be manipulated, they are excused. These shenanigans are permitted by judges whose canpaigns are financed by these lawyers.

A better tactic would have been to wait for the verdict. If it was wrong, then tell the judge you knew all about the machine, to cause a mistrial. The risk is that the little caesar on the bench would throw the truth telling juror in jail. Tell the truth, go to jail.

Despite all that lawyer trickery, plaintiffs in civil suits lose about 75% of the time. Even the hopelessly ignorant juries find no merit in most cases.

I assume neither side wanted to show any sign of weakness by stiking me.

I refused to serve as foreman, however, although I believe I was helpful to the other jurors by explaning the convoluted jury instructions we were given.

One lesson I learned – if you sue a law firm for malpractice, and the firm defends itself at trial – best not to be out-lawyered in the courtroom.

What prevented you from approaching the other attorney with your concerns once you were dismissed from the jury?

Is there a legal rule against this?