Observations From the Jury Room

Posted on September 22, 2009 by Robert Drexler

...you learn something new every day!  Yesterdays post included lessons one and two, today's post will continue with lessons three and four:

Lesson 3: Demonstrative evidence is very important. This case involved dry testimony about appraised values, “comparable sales” and square footage. The homeowner’s appraiser testified purely from a report without the assistance of demonstrative evidence. It fell flat for most jurors. On the other hand, the LAUSD appraiser’s testimony was presented with photos of the homes that were used in her appraisal report and colorful charts and maps, all of which kept our attention when she testified late in the day and which we frequently referred to in the jury room. Even the more rudimentary demonstrative evidence was helpful. Both attorneys made handwritten charts on butcher paper that helped clarify the testimony. These charts were posted on the bulletin board in the jury room.

Lesson 4: Most in the jury reached a conclusion early, largely on a gut reaction. We started our deliberations by asking everyone to provide “pros and cons” about the two witnesses. (It was obvious that virtually all jurors had paid close attention during the trial.) After that, as the end of the first day neared, one juror observed that there was one property common to both appraisals as a “comparable sale” and that if we used the square footage sale price for that property multiplied by the square footage of the Plaintiff’s home that the value was $400,000. Eight of the jurors quickly announced that this was their verdict. One juror almost provided the ninth vote which would have resulted in a verdict after only 2 hours of deliberations. I sensed that almost all jurors were critical of both appraisal reports but found the LAUSD appraiser to be more credible and were searching for a formula or rationale to reach a number in between the two appraisals but more in line with the LASUSD number. We agreed to break for the day and explore this methodology and others in the morning. The next day we tried other more complex formulas that involved throwing out some of the “suspect” sales from both reports and running our own numbers based on the “good” comparable sales. It turned out that no matter what formula we used we came out at a value that hovered around $400,000, which ultimately was our non-unanimous verdict (11-1). ($400,000 was $20,000 more than the LAUSD appraisal and $35,000 less than the homeowner’s appraisal). 

I came away from my experience on the jury with a renewed faith in the jury system and impressed with how seriously jurors took their job and the careful consideration given by most. I highly recommend that the next time you see your jury summons that you don’t be so quick to begin thinking up excuses as to why you can’t serve. From the perspective of a trial lawyer, I found the experience invaluable.

Tags: , , ,

Observations From the Jury Room

Posted on September 21, 2009 by Robert Drexler

A few weeks ago, I was called for jury service at the Los Angeles County Superior Court in downtown Los Angeles. I had every reason to believe that I would not be selected to serve because in my prior experiences with jury service I was not- chosen because one of the attorneys was afraid to have an attorney on the jury, especially one that does exclusively plaintiff’s work. Much to my surprise I was selected this time. (In voir dire , I told counsel that I was an attorney but was never questioned about the nature of my practice).  At first I panicked thinking of upcoming deadlines and time spent from the office. Fortunately for my schedule, the case was expected to last 2 days and the single jury question was to determine  fair market value of a home taken by the Los Angeles County School District (LAUSD) in 2007 in an eminent domain proceeding. As a trial attorney my experience “inside the box” was extremely interesting and informative. Here’s what I learned:

Lesson 1: You can’t judge a book by its cover. One juror who was selected was a young woman in her late 20s who proudly announced that she was an artist (dancer, actor and painter) and when asked to disclose her marital status sang out that she was “single and available”.  She joked at breaks in the trial that her drink container held vodka and after making those announcements literally fell over backwards in her chair twice during the trial, much to the amusement of all in the courtroom. Prior to the case beginning, the judge informed the jury that if they had a question that was not being asked by the attorneys that we could write our question on a piece of paper and submit it to the court. Shortly after the second fall from her chair this juror wrote a question to and passed it to the court clerk. Many of us in the jury “rolled our eyes” imagining the question. The question turned out to be an astute observation that exposed an inconsistency in an expert’s report that the judge, attorneys and everyone else in the jury had missed. This juror went on to serve as our foreperson and provided important insights that helped us reach our verdict.

Lesson 2: What’s important to trial attorney often isn’t important to jury members. The LAUSD expert was an appraiser who made her living being hired by attorneys representing governmental agencies and developers who were taking or purchasing homes for large construction projects.  I saw her as a biased “hired gun” who had not surprisingly appraised the property lower than the homeowner’s appraiser. However, the appraiser’s client list didn’t matter to most on the jury and they were impressed by her slick presentation and ability to deflect cross examination . 

...Class dissmissed! Lessons three and four will continue with tomorrow's post...

Tags: , , , , , ,