I just finished a two week trial that was probably one of the most complex medical cases of my 37 year career. Since the “resolution” of the case is the subject of a confidentiality agreement, I’m not at liberty to discuss the details of the case or its “resolution.” Nevertheless, what I am free to tell you is that having tried hundreds of jury trials over my career, it amazes me just how often jurors “get it” when it comes to doing their very best to understand the evidence thrown at them and to do “the right thing.”
The case involved about 8,000 pages of medical records. Jurors heard from 8 medical witnesses ranging from surgery, to infectious disease, to radiology to pathology. This was not a case involving “Anatomy 101″; it was an advanced course in the biomechanics of the spine, neural element compression, biofilms on hardware, pulmonary hypertension, deep vein thrombosis – well, you get the picture.
After nine grueling, long days of evidence, sitting in hard, non-cushioned chairs and having to endure seemingly endless bench conferences dealing with evidentiary issues and objections that the jury was not allowed to follow, our panel patiently waited for over two hours on their final day of service while the parties to the lawsuit worked out “a resolution” of the case. The trial was to end the next day (today). They, the jurors, would finally get to speak to us, rather than having us speak to them for over two weeks.
Once the details of the “resolution” were hammered out, the judge had the courtroom clerk bring the jury into the courtroom to take their “luxurious” wooden seats. The Court announced that the parties had “resolved” the case and that the jurors’ service was now completed. Nine plus days and countless hours of sitting and listening – and now – no chance to deliberate and tell the parties who they – the jurors - thought was right in this legal battle. The judge then advised them that they had served a most important function because many times (this being one of them) the parties could not reach agreement – uh “resolution” – without them. It was further announced by the Court that if they cared to do so, they were now free to speak with the lawyers.
Rather than gather up their belongings and hustle out the door, each and every one of them remained in the courtroom to share their thoughts and observations of the trial. Once again, as has happened so many times in my career, I was pleasantly surprised and amazed by what they had to say. Peppered with questions by the lawyers to see if they “got it,” our jurors shared their observations about key issues in the case. The told us about their “take” on the evidence involving T1 versus T2 weighted MRI’s. They accurately recounted the evidence regarding the issues of “sub-clinical infection.” They shared their individual thoughts and reflections on what role the decedent’s underlying, complicated co-morbidities played in their analysis of causation.
We’re not talking about a panel of medical experts here. We’re talking about everyday folks, who brought their common sense and varying levels of education and life-experiences to the litigation table. They “got it”!
None of the parties will ever know what the jury’s eventual verdict would have been. Nevertheless, because of the uncertainty of that verdict, the opposing sides in this lawsuit worked their way through a morass of emotion, righteousness, principles – you name it – to get the case “resolved.”
I hear so often from “professionals” that the jury system is broken. They rant endlessly that we need “professional” finders of fact to arrive at just results. Oh really! If that’s the case, then why is it that each side can have highly qualified experts, who can’t agree on the interpretation of medical evidence? Maybe – just maybe – it takes people of plain common sense, goodwill and a sense of justice to get it right.
Have jurors arrived at verdicts in my career that make you want to retire from the practice of law? They have – but on very rare occasions. When you put aside the self-righteousness of bias and advocacy and reflect on verdicts, many lawyers – I for one – appreciate that juries really do “get it” and really try to do “the right thing.”
To all the cynics out there, don’t be so unwilling to appreciate what these citizens do to advance our system of justice. Is the system perfect? Far from it, but not as far from it as many would have you believe.
Let me end by simply saying – THANKS to our citizens who made-up our jury. Your patience, attentiveness, endurance and willingness to serve is very much appreciated. You could easily have dreamed-up a way to avoid service on the jury during the selection (voir dire) process (as so many do in so many pathetic ways), but you didn’t do that. Kudos to each and every one of you. You did advance the cause of justice. You made the parties to this lawsuit take note of the fact that maybe, just maybe, their view of the case was about to be tested in the crucible of the jury room. That knowledge and the reality of an impending verdict made them step back, take a deep breath and come to a “resolution” of their dispute. Well done, Citizens! I for one applaud you.