I was summoned for jury
duty this week. I was among the
prospective jurors called to sit in the jury box for selection, but was
“excused” by the lawyer for the plaintiff during the peremptory challenge
process. I’ll give you my theory about
why I was bounced at the end of this post.
The matter at hand is a
bizarre civil case. A doctor who has
been found guilty of malpractice is suing a lawyer (who represented him in the
malpractice suit) for malpractice. I
think I got that right even though it does sound redundant. Seems that because he lost the original case
the doctor was reprimanded by the Medical Board and thinks his reputation and
income are damaged. He’s asking for
financial compensation for what he claims is the wrong done to him.
I haven’t heard the
evidence so I don’t have an opinion about who is right. I do have an opinion about whether this kind
of lawsuit should be the subject of a jury trial. Why should we taxpayers have our resources squandered
on what is a pissing match between two parties who by their own admission are
wealthy?
If they can’t settle their
differences and need an outside adjudicator, let them hire a mediator or
arbitrator or judge who can render a binding decision. To require a hundred private citizens to spend
several days sitting in a courtroom while a jury is chosen, tie up a Superior
Court judge, staff and facilities for weeks, and incur all the ancillary costs
associated with a trial that is essentially a private dispute is an outrageous
and unnecessary waste of public time and money.
About my being bounced from
the jury pool: During questioning of
prospective jurors the judge asked a man who said he was a writer whether he’d
written about legal matters. As readers
of this blog know, two years ago I wrote an extensive report on a murder trial
on which I was the foreperson of the jury.
It was a difficult, wrenching and in the end unsatisfying experience –
and I said so.
Before I was called to the
jury box this time it hadn’t occurred to me to talk about writing the earlier
blog. But after the judge questioned the
other juror I thought it might be relevant and brought it up when I was being
questioned. Lawyers for both the
plaintiff and defendant asked for more details.
I told them the story I wrote was widely read on the Internet by the
lawyers, witnesses, families and friends of those involved in the case, and
many others. One lawyer asked if I used
names. “Yes,” I responded.
Going in I hadn’t intended
to use my previous experience as a reason not to sit on this jury. But after the questions I was asked I thought
there was a good chance one or both of the lawyers would want me off the
jury. At his first opportunity, the
lawyer for the doctor “Thanked and excused Mr. Miller.”
Why? My theory is that win or lose there was no
way he or his client wanted to run the risk that this case would find its way into
the Internet universe. They must have
feared that the doctor’s reputation would be further damaged. Had I been on the jury, would I have written about
it? I have no idea. Would I have gone out of my way to disparage
the doctor? No. Even so, if I were the doctor’s lawyer would I
have wanted me on the jury? Not a
chance!
