Jury Duty SUCKS

That's gotta suck, but such is the law. It isn't about feeling bad; it's about proof.

If you want some manner of solace for that family... write it.

Write a story about how they heal.

Write a story about a doctor who takes the case as a wake-up call; because of this girl's death, another person lives because they were that much more aware of What Went Wrong.

Write a story in which a rogue jury member can't let the case go, does some more digging after the trial, and unearths a Terrible Conspiracy. (Ideally with lots of gunfire, and car chases, and gratuitous explosions and sex. Or sex that causes explosions.)

This is a writer's board, after all - and that's what we writers do. We write the world as it could be, as it maybe should be, instead of how it too often actually is...

Ugh. I sat a medical malpractice trial years ago. We also found for the defense, despite the fact that the defense attorney was offensively callous, the plaintiff seemed like a genuinely kind person, and the deceased seemed like a real loss to the world.

What was interesting was how we all came to the same conclusion, but for slightly different reasons. And how we all hated the same players, despite our finding.

But you did the right thing. Punishing the wrong people brings nobody back.

You have my sympathies.

I think medical malpractice and personal injury are difficult areas of law because there are a lot of people who genuinely have suffered a serious injury or loss, and it's natural to want them to be taken care of. It's horrible to think of someone who lost a beloved relative not getting any recourse, or someone who was paralyzed for the rest of their life not getting any help with their medical bills and future expenses. But sometimes the plaintiff's damages are genuine but the defendant is not clearly at fault or liable under the law.

I think a lot of people tend to think of two extremes: cases where the entire lawsuit is frivolous and cases where the plaintiff was clearly, seriously wronged by the defendant. The reality is that there's a lot in between those two extremes. Sometimes the plaintiffs are genuinely good people who could use the money from a lawsuit and really believe they have a strong case against the defendant, but the defendant doesn't meet the criteria of being at fault.

I'm taking a class on tort law at the moment, and a lot of the cases used as examples have been surprising. Sometimes plaintiffs win cases that you wouldn't expect to be successful, and sometimes the plaintiff seems deserving but doesn't win for any number of reasons.

I was really excited to sit on a jury, and we, too, found for the defense. My arguments kept a guy from going to jail, and I'm pretty happy about that. But I can understand how hard it must be to find against a hurting family.