WHAT DO JURORS WANT TO ACCOMPLISH AS JURORS?

Posted on February 25, 2016 by Paul Luvera

Have you ever taken the  time to mentally step into the shoes of your jurors and look at the trial as if you were a juror rather than a lawyer representing a client? We know that  most jurors are asking themselves: “what does the person suing want and what does the other side claim?”  But subconsciously the most basic question they all have is: “what is in this case for me? How does this case affect me, my family and the community?” Basic primitive drive we all have  is survival which involves worrying about us. We are self-centered by nature. that being true appeal to self interest. In trials where we want to persuade the jury we should be analyzing how they are likely to feel and think about the jury process.

We know from jury research the basic motives and desires of jurors in a general sense. They are outlined below. I believe that good trial lawyers should appeal to the jury self interest as part of our request for a verdict in our client’s favor. Not only are these thoughts  important to communicate throughout the trial in one way or another, my practice was to always incorporate them in summation. I always reassured the jury of the of doing the right thing; of being proud of their jury verdict; of the importance of their verdict and the benefit a verdict in our favor would be for them and community.

I recommend that you do further research into the basic desires and motives of jurors with the resolution to incorporate them into your next trial. Here are some of the basic jury motivations.

  1. They want to do the right thing

(1)  They want their verdict to be the right verdict & the right decision for the case
(2)  They want to feel they have acted fairly, rationally & wisely in making their decision
(3)   They want to have accomplished justice: reject claims without merit & remedy wrongs that deserve remedies

2.  They want their verdict to have made a difference

(1)  They want their verdict to make the right difference to the litigants involved
(2) They want to have their verdict to have meaning beyond the litigants involved
(3)  They want to have their verdict make changes for their good & that of the community

3.   They want their jury service to have been important

(1)  They feel like they have made a sacrifice serving & they want it to have been justified
(2)  They want to be proud of having served on the jury
(3)  They want to accomplish a result they can tell others about proudly

Posted in Jury | Leave a comment

BASIC OUTLINE FOR CROSS EXAMINATION ABOUT WORKER SAFETY

Posted on February 18, 2016 by Paul Luvera

Here’s a very simple outline for cross  examination about worker safety. You would add  to this relevant information and discovery from the case. It’s a start,  however, for you to consider and  improve upon:

WARNING-SAFETY CROSS EXAMINATION GENERAL OUTLINE 

COLLATERAL ATTACK

ELIMINATING OR MINIMIZING RISK OF SERIOUS INJURY OR DEATH

  1.  TRUE THAT TEXACO SHOULD HOLD PARAMOUNT THE SAFETY AND HEALTH OF IT’S WORKERS?
  2. AGREE WITH THE PROPOSITION THAT:

ANY RISK OF SERIOUS BODILY INJURY OR DEATH IS ALWAYS UNACCEPTABLE IF REASONABLE MEANS COULD HAVE BEEN USEDTO MINIMIZE OR ELIMINATE THE DANGER? 

  1. AGREE THAT “IT’S BETTER TO BE SAFE THEN SORRY?” 
  2. AGREE ONE SHOULD FIRST INSPECT FOR DANGEROUS CONDITIONS?
  3. IF A DANGER IS DISCOVERED ONE SHOULD ELIMINATE THE HAZARD IF REASONABLY POSSIBLE?IF YOU CAN”T ELIMINATE THE DANGER THEN INSTALL PROTECTIVE DEVICES AROUND IT IF POSSIBLE?
    1. IF ONE CAN’T ELIMINATE THE DANGER OR PROTECT AGAINST IT, THEN ONE MUST GIVE WARNINGS OF THE DANGER SO PEOPLE WILL KNOW?
    2.   AGREE THAT “APPEARANCES ARE OFTEN DECEIVING” AND WORKERS  MIGHT NOT RECOGNIZE A DANGER UNLESS WARNED ABOUT IT?
    3. AN INADEQUATE WARNING IS NO WARNING AT ALL?
    4. AGREE THE GREATER THE RISK OF INJURY THE GREATER THE DUTY TO ACT?

SAFETY HAZARDS TO WORKERS

  1. IT WOULD HAVE COST FAR LESS TO ELIMINATE HAZARDS OR INSTALL SAFETY DEVICES THEN TO PAY THE COST FOR SERIOUS INJURY
  2. LIFE IS TOO PRECIOUS TO EVER RISK IT WHEN THE HAZARD CAN BE AVOIDED?
  3. COST EFFECTIVE SAFETY MEASURES- COST OF INJURY vs COST OF PROTECTION
  4. IN AMERICA, WE CARE ABOUT OTHERS
  5. IN AMERICA, WE DON’T WANT PEOPLE TO GET HURT

ANALYZING WHAT IS REASONABLE IN ACCIDENT PREVENTION

  1. IN DECIDING WHAT’S REASONABLE IN ACCIDENT PREVENTION, WOULD EVALUATING THE RISK OF INJURY BE IMPORTANT?
  2.   THE RISK OR CHANCE OF IT HAPPENING SHOULD BE CONSIDERED?
  3. THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE HAZARD OR DANGER IS ALSO SOMETHING TO BE CONSIDERED?
  4. A HAZARD THAT COULD RESULT IN DEATH IS MORE SERIOUS THEN ONE THAT MIGHT MAKE A SMALL BRUISE?
  5. THE COMPARISON OF BOTH OF THESE RISK & SERIOUSNESS OF HARM SHOULD BE MADE IN DECIDING WHAT IS REASONABLE BY WAY OF ACCIDENT PREVENTION?
  6. DO YOU AGREE THAT WHEN IT COMES TO PREVENTING SERIOUS INJURY OR DEATH FROM PREVENTABLE ACCIDENTS, TEXACO SHOULD PRACTICE THE POLICY:   “AN OUNCE OF PREVENTION IS WORTH A POUND OF CURE” 


AVAILABLE MEANS TO PREVENT ACCIDENT AND DEATH 

  1. PUT TAG ON SCAFFOLD
  2. TAPE AREA AS  DANGEROUS
  3. GOOD INTENTIONS ARE NOT ENOUGH. “THE ROAD TO HELL IS PAVED WITH GOOD INTENTIONS”

EVALUATING THE COST AND EFFORT INVOLVED TO ELIMINATE OR MINIMIZE THE HAZARD1

  1. AGREE IN EVALUATING WHAT WAS REASONABLE TO HAVE ELIMINATED, PREVENTED OR MINIMIZED THE CHANCE OF THIS DEATH WE SHOULD CONSIDER:

(1)        IS THE PROPOSED ACCIDENT PREVENTION ACTION POSSIBLE TO DO?

(2)       WAS IT POSSIBLE TO DO?

(3)  IS IT A KNOWN AND ACCEPTED ACCIDENT PREVENTION METHOD? – USED BY OTHERS?

(4)   THIS IS A KNOWN AND ACCEPTED PRACTICE?

(5)        WHAT WOULD IT  COST

(6)   NORMALLY A LOT LESS EXPENSIVE TO PREVENT ACCIDENTS THEN THE SUFFER INJURY OR DEATH?

(7)        HOW MUCH TIME DOES IT TAKE?

(8)        HOW DIFFICULT IS IT TO DO? – WHAT EFFORT IS REQUIRED?

(9)        IS A SUBSTANTIAL PERSONAL DANGER OR SACRIFICE IN CARRYING OUT THE SAFETY MEASURE?

TOOK SAFETY FOR GRANTED

  1.  ISN’T IT TRUE THAT WORKERS HAVE THE RIGHT TO ASSUME THEY KNOW THEIR JOB AND WILL IT RIGHT?
  2. RESPONSIBILITY: IF YOU HAVE CONTROL OVER THE WORK SITE  THEN YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SAFETY OF WORKERS ON THAT SITE?
  3. ACCOUNTABILITY: IF YOU FAIL TO FULFILL YOUR DUTY OF SAFETY THEN YOU ARE ACCOUNTABLE?
  4. NOT ACCEPTABLE FOR TEXACO TO FAIL IN IT=S DUTY TO PROVIDE A SAFE WORK SITE AND BLAME SOMEONE ELSE?
  5. IF A DRIVER=S AIR BAG FAILS TO WORK, THE MANUFACTURER SHOULDN’T BE ALLOWED TO SAY: “BUT IF HAD DRIVEN SAFELY YOU WOULD WOULDN’T NEED AN AIR BAG”

WORKERS HAVE RIGHT TO ASSUME OWNER WILL KEEP WORK SITE EN SAFE

  1. HAVE RIGHT TO ASSUME WILL ADOPT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES TO ELIMINATE POTENTIAL HAZARDS OF SERIOUS INJURY?
  2. WORKERS HAVE RIGHT TO EXPECT THAT IF A POTENTIAL HAZARD OF SERIOUS HARM EXISTS ON TEXACO=S PROPERTY TEXACO WILL TAKE SAFETY ACTION
  3. WHEN YOU FLY ON A COMMERCIAL AIRPLANE YOU DO NOT HAVE TO CHECK THE TIRES, THE GAUGES OR ASK ABOUT THE TRAINING OF THE PILOT.

 

Posted in Cross Examination | Leave a comment

10 KEY CONCEPTS FOR JURY SELECTION

Posted on February 13, 2016 by Paul Luvera

The Washington State Bar Association publication, NW Lawyers, has just published an article I wrote on jury selection in its February 2016 issue, Volume 70, No. 1. Here  is a link to the article.

NW ARTICLE

Posted in Jury Selection | 1 Comment