![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
elfsAfter lunch, we re-assemble back on the third floor and wait for the bailiff to lead us to the deliberations room. She arrives, all twelve of us assemble, and she leads us upstairs. As we're about to enter the jury area, a "controlled area," she asks "Are we all here?"
"All thirteen."
She laughs, but as it turns out there are thirteen of us. We have a straggler, a lost young man (very cute, with short black hair and a Cyrillic accent) who's just following us because we seem to know where we're going. We call out to the bailiff that we're not kidding. We have a thirteenth. We find out that he really wants to go to a courtroom on the third floor and the bailiff gets him sorted out.
We assemble in the jury room. Being an idiot, I toss a box of chocolate-covered espresso beans on the table and say "Okay, our first duty is to pick a presiding juror."
"Looks like you're it," says one of my fellow jurors. "You're the first one to speak up." There's some hemming and hawing. Don't these people realize I'm not fit to lead a dog? I guess I'm not really leading so much as "presiding", and I'm not about to try and impose Robert's Rules on these people.
And so we start.
The first order of business is to create a matrix on the whiteboard. There's a lot to consider. The verdict requires three categories: past economic damages, future economic damages, and non-economic damages.
The wrangling begins. There are lots of opinions, lots of facts. We pass around the evidence book and read aloud from the doctor's notes, trying to decipher his horrible handwriting. We read the full paramedic report.
The actual jury, now that I can see them all face to face, is quite a mix. We have one hispanic, two black men, one red-headed woman, and the rest is all white guys with ages from mid 20s to early 50's, with the economic status from lower to upper middle class. That's it. No wealthy people; no impoverished people. Everyone here has a job.
Ultimately, we have two line items: For each party, the past medical and lost wages, what each is asking for in future medical, and pain and suffering.
We agree that Miss T, and Koenig even says Frank agrees, that she should get compensation for her medical bills congruent with the ambulance, the ER, and maybe the first two years of treatment. We wrangle for a while, but there are two issues on the table. The first is: do we award her for medical treatment after the two year period? The second is harder, and takes a while. During her medical treatment, she almost never paid a bill even though she was employed or going to school full-time. Although she has nearly $12,000 in medical, she also has $5000 in interest and service charges. Should we cover that as well?
Someone floats a proposal that wins mindshare: the amount we award for current economic damages will cover her expenses to date in full. Close the books. The amount for future economic damages will be zero. Let me be clear: ten jurors (and we needed ten out of twelve to make the verdict stick) thought that was the correct amount. Not all of us agreed with the full amount in the past and none for the future.
But the majority wants to send a message: in the past six years her treatment has come from one guy, and it doesn't seem to be helping now as much as it has. Choose differently. The holdouts for a different ratio voted for what we choose. They agree that she should choose differently and get help from resources other than just Doc L, but they don't want to communicate that she should just give up and seek no further help. The conversation is quite loud, everyone gets a say, but finally we take a count.
The decision sticks. We're deliberate.
I write it down on the white board. We're done for the day.
"All thirteen."
She laughs, but as it turns out there are thirteen of us. We have a straggler, a lost young man (very cute, with short black hair and a Cyrillic accent) who's just following us because we seem to know where we're going. We call out to the bailiff that we're not kidding. We have a thirteenth. We find out that he really wants to go to a courtroom on the third floor and the bailiff gets him sorted out.
We assemble in the jury room. Being an idiot, I toss a box of chocolate-covered espresso beans on the table and say "Okay, our first duty is to pick a presiding juror."
"Looks like you're it," says one of my fellow jurors. "You're the first one to speak up." There's some hemming and hawing. Don't these people realize I'm not fit to lead a dog? I guess I'm not really leading so much as "presiding", and I'm not about to try and impose Robert's Rules on these people.
And so we start.
The first order of business is to create a matrix on the whiteboard. There's a lot to consider. The verdict requires three categories: past economic damages, future economic damages, and non-economic damages.
The wrangling begins. There are lots of opinions, lots of facts. We pass around the evidence book and read aloud from the doctor's notes, trying to decipher his horrible handwriting. We read the full paramedic report.
The actual jury, now that I can see them all face to face, is quite a mix. We have one hispanic, two black men, one red-headed woman, and the rest is all white guys with ages from mid 20s to early 50's, with the economic status from lower to upper middle class. That's it. No wealthy people; no impoverished people. Everyone here has a job.
Ultimately, we have two line items: For each party, the past medical and lost wages, what each is asking for in future medical, and pain and suffering.
We agree that Miss T, and Koenig even says Frank agrees, that she should get compensation for her medical bills congruent with the ambulance, the ER, and maybe the first two years of treatment. We wrangle for a while, but there are two issues on the table. The first is: do we award her for medical treatment after the two year period? The second is harder, and takes a while. During her medical treatment, she almost never paid a bill even though she was employed or going to school full-time. Although she has nearly $12,000 in medical, she also has $5000 in interest and service charges. Should we cover that as well?
Someone floats a proposal that wins mindshare: the amount we award for current economic damages will cover her expenses to date in full. Close the books. The amount for future economic damages will be zero. Let me be clear: ten jurors (and we needed ten out of twelve to make the verdict stick) thought that was the correct amount. Not all of us agreed with the full amount in the past and none for the future.
But the majority wants to send a message: in the past six years her treatment has come from one guy, and it doesn't seem to be helping now as much as it has. Choose differently. The holdouts for a different ratio voted for what we choose. They agree that she should choose differently and get help from resources other than just Doc L, but they don't want to communicate that she should just give up and seek no further help. The conversation is quite loud, everyone gets a say, but finally we take a count.
The decision sticks. We're deliberate.
I write it down on the white board. We're done for the day.
