I had jury duty this past week, and for the first time I actually served on a trial. I was placed on a civil suit for an immigrant couple whose car was struck 3 years ago. The woman who hit them had already been declared guilty, so the purpose of this trial was deciding how much money should be awarded to the couple.

The first day was fascinating, consisting of the jury selection followed by opening statements by the lawyers. The whole atmosphere of the courtroom was intriguing, especially the three lawyers’ different approaches to trying to “win over” the jury; the testimony itself by the couple, augmented by two translators; and watching the body language of everybody involved in the trial. The female plaintiff was obviously in great pain as she shifted and fidgeted in her seat all afternoon. Since her main complaint was lower back pain, and the symptoms she described were very similar to mine when my back is at its worst, I tended to empathize with her. The lawyer for the defendant–whom I assume is really working for the car insurance company–stated that he did not have to prove anything, but that the lawyers for the plaintiffs–and both the husband and wife had their own lawyer, which was interesting–must prove that they suffered “permanent damage” as the result of the accident.

Thursday we listened to testimony for nearly 5 hours, including both plaintiff’s lawyers and the defense lawyer, questioning and then cross-examining. The lawyers tried everything possible to impress we 7 jury members, especially the cross-examiners who tried to “trip up” the witnesses. In the morning we listened to the chiropractor who treated the two plaintiffs for 3 years, while in the afternoon we listened to the doctor who examined them once in the employ of the defense lawyer. Since that doctor is physically unable to conduct his daily practice anymore, his salary consists exclusively of examining patients and reporting on them in court, 80% of whom he does in the employ of defense lawyers. So how are we supposed to believe this doctor is unbiased if his salary is dependent on satisfying the insurance company? In his testimony he insisted that reading MRI and other test results is subjective, not objective, so doesn’t that damn his own testimony as obviously unreliable? While the chiropractor is no longer treating the two plaintiffs, what reason does he have to be nonobjective?

Friday morning we listened to closing statements by all three lawyers. The lawyer for the defense tried to impress us with the doctor’s testimony, but most of us were already prejudiced against him. The lawyer for the wife was a young man who also did not impress me much, trying too much to imitate television lawyers. The lawyer for the husband was a middle-aged lawyer who served as a teacher, telling us all the facts we needed to know but, obviously, emphasizing facts which were likeliest to impress us. As I expected, he derided the doctor’s credentials as a shill of the insurance company, compared to the chiropractor who knew the two plaintiffs much better from having treated them for three years.

Then the judge instructed us as to our duty, which consisted of answering three questions for each plaintiff: Did they sustain an injury caused by the accident, consisting of a permanent injury within a reasonable degree of medical probability? Did they sustain an injury caused by the accident that has had a serious impact on their life? And how much money will fairly and reasonably compensate them for the pain, suffering and disability caused by the accident? We were given absolutely no guidelines for monetary damages, but were told that the scales only had to tilt slightly toward the plaintiffs for us to judge them deserving of damages.

When we went into the jury room for our deliberations, several jurors were confused at first. I tended to take charge and told the other 6 jurors that damages had indeed taken place in the accident, emphasizing the knowledge of their condition by the chiropractor, the results of the MRI and EMG tests, and the unreliability of the doctor. For each question I had supporters in the room, so eventually everybody came around to our position and we voted “yes” 7-0 on each question.

Then we came to the money, and I suggested that according to the chiropractor’s records they had been going to see him once a month prior to moving out-of-state early in 2004. At $50 a visit, that came to $25,000 to continue receiving chiropractic care for the 42 years which is the expected survival rate of both plaintiffs. Since lawyers receive 1/3 of the settlement, that raised the total award to $40,000 each. Every juror agreed that it was a fair amount, so that was our decision for both plaintiffs. When we read our decision to the court, the lawyers turned to the plaintiffs, and all four of them seemed satisfied with our verdict.

Serving on a jury was a rewarding, and very interesting experience, and I am glad I did it, in spite of the inconvenience to my classes the past three days.