Cover |Favorite | Taxi | Building | Centerfold | Wine | Portfolio | Jury Duty | Music | Details | Parting shot

Jury Duty

“Dr. Thomas should be the foreman,” someone spoke out as we entered the jury room, now allowed to talk after three days. Is that every attornies fear, that a professional will control the jury?

“Actually, I think I would do better to answer medical questions and allow someone else to be foreman.” I replied.

Fifteen years of post high school education is a bit more than average. Judging from the jury pool, I would say zero to three years is the average education. This was my third time to serve on jury duty and still I am the first physician many judges have seen in a jury room. Obviously, physicians lead busy, important lives.

“I was injured in the Vietnam war and never compensated. I’m not going to let this guy suffer, the way I did! He’ll get his money,” volunteered a panel member sporting a motorcycle silkscreened T-shirt.

Do physicians really wonder why jury awards are so large? There was certainly some balance among the jury panel, with reasonable arguments for various opinions. There were also arguments that were beyond my comprehension. Though I clearly felt there was some absolute truth and in this case truth did not seem to be on the side of the plaintiff, it seemed more reasonable to compromise and let everyone’s opinion have some representation in the outcome.

The plaintiff claimed some injury from an auto accident that he did not cause. Everyone agreed on that. The plaintiff’s attorney brought in several physicians - generalists - who in summary said, “If he was in the accident and this pain came on after the accident, then it was due to the accident.” This thought process - that if B follows A then B must be due to A seemed a bit presumptuous and short-sighted to me. That is, if you don’t understand something, then assume a chronological cause. (Please don’t assume this is my opinion of generalists, just those picked to testify in this case. I am quite sure the plaintiff’s attorney chose these physicians for a reason.)

The defense attorney brought in several people to show that the plaintiff was involved in shady business deals, had been financially screwed by his own family and needed money. Lastly, he brought in two subspecialists who, quite clearly to me, demonstrated that the plaintiff’s complaints had not come from the auto accident - a medical improbability. Then, of course, these specialists spoke a language that I understood.

I couldn’t believe the legal system was wasting this many peoples time (three days), when a judge could easily have decided this case. At least, I thought the decision was a simple one. The plaintiff’s medical complaint had nothing to do with the accident.

However, if you added up the number of people testifying that the plaintiff was right, he should win. The plaintiff’s attorney brought in more “expert testimony”. If detailed explanations were hard for you to understand, the plaintiff would win. If you were previously wronged by the government or some other person with more power than you, then you would reward the perceived underdog victim.

It is enlightening to see a juror, a person who might drive a mile to the next grocery store to use a 30 cent coupon, talk about 5,000 or 50,000 dollars with even less concern than the price of food at Costco. When it is not your money, it is easy to spend it.

But, we have the jury system for a reason, it could be a better system, but there are worse ones where the power of the judicial system corrupts. The jury system certainly takes the power out of any one persons hand, though it puts a bit much power in the hands of an attorney who can tug someone’s emotional strings.

This plaintiff got a few thousand dollars so the jury could get back to work and home on this particular Friday evening at 6:30 pm (you didn’t think personal issues got in the way of jury deliberations?). That seemed easier than for any one righteous juror to hold out for their opinion to give him nothing or to give him $100,000.

The particular juries I have been in, this one included, were comprised of interesting and delightful people, though I wouldn’t go so far as to say everyone was logical. However, if the educated don’t serve on juries, then emotions may well play a significant role in decision making.

I hoped that my contribution to the jury process was one of reason and not a power grab because of the status of a physician. Perhaps the jury system provides a leveling of individuals in society not present in our day to day experience.