... and evidence that occasionally there really is need for a lawyer!

I will try to answer your ...

>> Questions for the Barristers among us:

>> How does a law suit get that far if there is no basis for the case?

There are several mechanisms designed to prevent truly groundless cases from going to trial, including pretrial motions, settlement hearings, mediation, arbitration, etc. They don't always work. And, it is not always possible to tell that there is insufficient evidence until it is actually presented in court.

>> Is it simply an issue of the Plaintiff getting her day(s) in court?

Not usually. If a case is truly meritless, it will usually get filtered out of the system before getting to trial. It is possible (perhaps even likely) that there was enough evidence but that the plaintiff simply failed to produce it all in admissible form.

>> Wouldn't the Court have reviewed all of the potential exhibits ...

Almost certainly not.

>> ... and the deposition before a jury was seated?

If any depositions were taken, they were probably taken by the defense, not the plaintiff, so would not have helped her. In any event, the judge would generally have no occasion to be reviewing them before trial unless they were produced as part of the evidence in a pretrial hearing.

Exhibits and depositions in particular often contain material which is neither relevant nor admissible and may actually be prejudicial and inadmissible. And, judges don't have time to review all of the evidence in all of the cases pending in their courts -- which would result in wasting hundreds of hours reviewing evidence in cases that ultimately settle (which is most of them).

>> Did the Plaintif simply not ask for the right exhibits to be entered into evidence?

Possible, though it would be necessary to look at them to see if she failed to offer any that should have been entered and would have helped her.

>> Why would she have prepared many, many exhibits and
>> then not ask that they ALL be entered as evidence?

Hard to say. If they were all marked as exhibits and discussed by witnesses during the trial, they probably should have been admitted. Maybe she just didn't know what to do and the judge's patience and indulgence waned.

>> Who pays the cost of the two days of proceedings? Taxpayers?

Of course. The court is part of the government. It's there for all to use (or, as is occasionally the case, misuse). Sort of like insurance, if you will, spreading the cost among us all, even though we don't all take direct advantage of it. We put up with the occasional misuse for the greater good of having it available to all, even those who can't individually afford it.

>> Plaintiff?

Not generally, though there are some things which can be charged to the parties (such as the court reporter costs).

>> Why, generally, does one choose not to seek
>> representation? Is it usually a matter of $$$$?

A case like this would normally be taken by a plaintiff's lawyer on a contingency basis. That is, the lawyer would get a percentage of any recovery, but would not otherwise charge for his time (though cash expenses would be paid separately and sometimes in advance). She may have tried to get someone to take the case without success (probably because it was either unlikely to be a winner or, even if winnable, damages were not enough to make it practical for a lawyer to represent her). In that case, some lawyers would agree to represent her on an hourly basis, but she probably could not afford that.

>> Ego?? Delusions??

Sometimes either or both, though it doesn't sound like that was the case in your trial.

>> In light of my stating that I had been accused of discrimination
>> based on National Origin, do you think I was chosen as a juror
>> in this case by the Plaintiff or the Defense?

Jurors are not "chosen" by either side. They have to be accepted by both sides, each of which has the opportunity to challenge potential jurors (that process is rather arcane and it would take a lengthy message to explain it all). Suffice it to say, either side could have kicked you off without having to even say why (peremptory challenge) or could have asked the court to excuse you for cause if your voir dire answers indicated that you were prejudiced against one side or the other.

As a lawyer who has selected juries in more than 100 trials over the years, let me say that I appreciate the willingness of people like yourself to serve as jurors. Without citizen jurors, our system simply could not function -- and I believe that, for all of its faults, it is still the best justice system in the world. You done good!

----- jim o\-S