I’ve won and lost for equally ridiculous reasons based on my discussions with jurors afterwards. In a case I won, for instance, the plaintiff had a facially meritorious case, but the jury rejected her because they “just thought she was real nasty.” Likewise, I’ve lost in a case with no merit because the plaintiff “was a real nice lady.”

Nowhere, of course, does the judge charge the jury that thinking plaintiff is a ‘real nice lady’ is grounds for a plaintiff’s verdict. But that’s the level of sophistication we’re dealing with for the average juror. That’s not to say they can’t ever get it right or that common sense has no place, but law is tricky. In the criminal law, for instance, most people don’t get the Fifth Amendment right not to testify. And if you think about it, that makes sense: “If they didn’t do it, why don’t they just take the stand and tell us?” So, not all jury failures to understand things are so blameworthy.

Juries are like democracy in microcosm. You end up with a system that puts out the approximate level of quality put in. For people in general, that’s not all that high. Maybe that’s better than the alternatives, but I reserve the right to observe and criticize.

Bob

The plaintiff’s husband died in Nov. 2009. Somebody wrote “he died from a fall”, but they really meant “he died IN the fall”.