Almost chosen for jury duty

In April, I almost got chosen for a 31 day trial. I was fascinated by the possibility of serving: Lone plaintiff, appear pro per (representing herself), alleging damages and injury from mold in a house she bought, suing the previous owner, their real estate agent, the inspector, and the Roto Rooter man. She was claiming among her damages that she was injured so badly that she was permanently unable to work. The defendants claiming everything was a result of pre-existing conditions of the plaintiff.

People were selected over a course of 5 days, after being told the possible length of the case. In the first round of selection, 80% of the people eagerly raised their hands to self-select themselves out of the case. Everyone remaining then went down to a courtroom and was given more information, and again given opportunities to individually answer to the judge as to why they couldn't serve. Knowing the defendants, plaintiff, or the lawyers was a good reason to get out. The judge introduced the plaintiff, each of the defendants, and their lawyers. She had each stand and turn around to face all the prospective jurors, so we could see if we knew the person. The plaintiff stood up with a paper mask covering her face. I sat there wondering why no one had the nerve (including me) to ask the judge to have her remove her mask so we could all get a good look at her to see if we really knew her or not.

We were also given a long list of witnesses to be called in the case, and knowing any of them was good grounds to be dismissed from jury service.

Economic hardship was allowed as a reason to get out of the case, except for government employees whose jobs covered them for jury duty. Some teachers were allowed out, but their administrators sometimes were not because they are also considered government employees whose salary is covered while serving on jury duty. Having been involved in a mold case, or just having very strong feelings about the case, and a professed inability to be impartial, were allowed as reasons out. The rest were then asked to come back a second day for jury selection.

On the second day of jury selection, the judge again read us a synopsis of the case, and asked if anyone had any additional reservations about serving. Of course you weren't allowed to go and discuss the case with anyone during those intervening days, but obviously many people did. Many people when given the opportunity to get out, and many stood up and said the whole thing was a farce of this lone woman against all those lawyers (8 of them), the whole thing should have settled out of court. The judge asked them not to tell too much of their reason for wanting out, for fear they would taint the rest of the jury pool. The judge assured them that of her load of 1200 cases, 98% do settle out of court, but this is one that didn't. She would then ask, shouldn't the plaintiffs and defendants have a right to this forum? Everyone who stood up saying the case was ridiculous, and continued to say so after the judge,

I asked a lawyer friend about the likelihood of someone like this having a very good case, and the plaintiff not being able to find a lawyer to take their case. I can easily believe that having a lawyer would greatly increase someone's chances of recovery, and increase the dollar amount of their recovery, the court process has been made to be very complex by the cabal of lawyers, to ensure their own indispensable place in the process. Had this person been instead told they didn't have a good case, and were doing the case on their own? My friend said this is a very popular case in our area of California. He didn't give me a feeling that it would have been hard to find a lawyer in California. They are plentiful enough I used to have an unemployed lawyer living in my office! I asked another friend what he thought, a friend who despite having $40 million dollars at one point, a later defaulted on an 8 million house loan, and $250K in credit card bills. He felt it was very likely someone could have a good case of this type but be unable to find a lawyer. I know of his attitudes about get something for nothing, and leave someone else holding the bag, so I considered the source. It was fascinating their different perceptions of the ease of finding a lawyer.

I felt strongly both the plaintiffs and the defendants deserved the protection of the court process. But I was worried about the risks to my career and daily life of being involved in 3 days a week for 3 months of jury service. I didn't want to miss doing my duty if it really was necessary for justice to prevail. If the case could have been finished in two to three weeks, I would have been willing to suffer the risks and inconvenience. If my wife was still working, I would have been willing to try and endure even two months. But three months was a bit much, so I asked my lawyer friend, and off the record he advised me to tell the judge I am sole breadwinner in my household, and give the judge an opportunity to consider this. I finally decided to give the judge a better reason to dismiss me, and she agreed, so luckily I was able to squirm out of it.

As I was walking away from the second day of jury selection, I realized the fatal flaw in the whole thing that would have prejudiced me against the plaintiff: I saw her in the hallway before the second day of jury selection, riffling through a carefully organized cubic foot sized wheeled filing box of papers. She was able to orchestrate a long (possibly several year process) to get to court, was able to be organized, and was going to have the stamina to appear for 31 days of examining witnesses, etc. Other than a tendency to vexacious litigiousness, I realized this lone plantiff seems to show a large number of employable skills and traits, and I probably was not going to buy the permanent disability angle. I was already not really buying the idea that she couldn't find a lawyer to represent her, but incongruity of her organization and tenacity in opposition to claiming permanent unemployability, it would have been too much for me to swallow.

Part of me wanted to stay to help defend the defendants against a gold digging plaintiff. But I also realized that I might just end up believing who ever the last expert was who I listened to. Anyone can find a doctor to certify some reason to get a medical marijuana card, or a disability claim certified, surely gold diggers can also find their experts. Perhaps, to get off the jury, I should have stood up and simply said "Your honor I can not be impartial in this case because I see evidence in front of me that some of the claims of the plaintiff are undeniably false." That would have been a real zinger, good thing I don't think so fast, and was somewhat awed by the gravity of the situation.

The issue of jury pay also bothers me in general. The lawyers are billing $300-$400 an hour for their appearance. When the defendants are people with insurance, we all pay for the cost in increased insurance costs. The judge probably also makes a handsome salary. Even the court reporters and clerks, as public servants, are well rewarded with benefits and pensions that are the envy of many professionals in private employment.

What harm would it be to pay the jurors a reasonable rate for their service? There is a similar problem in the area of blood donation. Blood donors must donate for free. However, blood and it's products are a huge business, a pint of blood selling for at least $500 in the U.S.. 20 years ago, blood plasma donors used to receive $25 a a donation, and one could give two donations a week. $100 a month was enough to afford a bed in a boarding house, and you could eat on the remainder. But that was done away with because some say it encourages the wrong kind of people to give blood. Does paying the doctors and nurses encourage the wrong kind of people to become doctors and nurses?

Government should not use it's power to compel (the gun and jail) to force people to do valuable work for less than private employers are forced to pay individuals. I've always thought that jurors ought to get at least minimum wage, anything less is an insult. Such an increase in juror per diem could likely be funded by a 1% or 2% tax on settlement awards. It would still be one of the smallest costs of the court system. Perhaps it would generate enough funds to pay people for the first day that they are compelled to take off of work to come in and see if they are selected for a jury. In California you only get a per diem for your second and later day of jury service.

While I'm not normally in favor of greater taxes, I'm not in favor of creating captives out of free people to be a part of circus of greed either. I am suspicious of the court process in how the jury is given a very carefully contrived picture of reality, and how judges expect the jury to follow exact instructions about issues because they say the issues and rules are too complicated for non-lawyers to understand. Why should the law be that complicated, whose fault is that, and who gets to benefit from that creation? And the jurors are expected not to have thoughts of their own about the case or ask their own questions. And how judges consider it an afront to their sovereignty if jurors exercise a right such as jury nullification to reprimand bad laws or over zealous prosecution. If jurors really are such an important part of the process as the judges tell us we are, then the jurors really should be given a reasonable payment for their services, and not asked to give 8 hours of captive rapt attention for days on end to a case, and in return accept a per diem that is barely enough to cover a lunch in the court cafeteria.