Twelve Angry Men (and Women)?

Even though it is considered a civic duty and essential part of the Anglo-American Common Law system since 1215, nobody sane really enjoys jury duty.  You are paid a measly stipend to be treated like a mushroom. And now it seems the mushrooms are revolting.

Faced with the financial burden of taking off from work several days, or even weeks, to sit on a jury some jurors are acting out in passive-aggressive ways.

Spurned in his effort to get out of jury duty, salesman Tony Prados turned his attention to the case that could cost him three weeks’ pay: A Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputy was suing his former sergeant, alleging severe emotional distress inflicted by lewd and false innuendo that he was gay.

Prados, an ex-Marine, leaned forward in the jury box and asked in a let-me-get-this-straight tone of voice: “He’s brave enough to go out and get shot at by anyone but he couldn’t handle this?” he said of the locker-room taunting.

Fellow jury candidate Robert Avanesian, who had also unsuccessfully sought dismissal on financial hardship grounds, chimed in: “I think severe emotional distress is what is happening in Haiti. I don’t think you could have such severe emotional distress from that,” he said of the allegations in the deputy’s case.

The litigants in that case dismissed the jury and converted their case to a bench trial.

I will not insult your intelligence and suggest that every jury is going to rebel against the system or claim that the only way to fairly resolve your case is through ADR.  But the current economic crisis is something that lawyers should take into account when assessing the strengths and weaknesses of their case.    As one Los Angeleno juror put it,

“Money is such an issue and to give money to someone for results of a case, it’s really important that they’re getting it for a real reason, an important reason.”

A lawyer preparing for trial should ask herself: Is the jury going to sympathize with that PI plaintiff or see a malingerer out to score on a dubious claim?  Are the jurors going to care about the corporation going after a “little guy” struggling to make a living or will they see a defendant trying to cheat the system?  Will the jury pay attention to several days or weeks of evidence and testimony when they are thinking whether they can keep the lights on or feed their kids with their $25 a day stipend instead of their regular paycheck?

If you really can’t answer those questions, then mediation or arbitration presents a better opportunity to limit those risks and get the case resolved.

A tip o’ the hat to Steve Mehta.