|
|
|
The initial post criticized the fact that lawyers might get involved.
Yes, they muddy up the waters to best suit their case.
You are assuming there will be $10 million settlements without learning all the facts. I am suggesting that lawyers help uncover the facts, and justice follows from there.
The $10 million was just used as an indication that the lawyers will not be gentle, they will go for the kill, and the money is their sole driving force. Uncovering facts? Truth is everywhere BUT a courthouse 
, the facts get so twisted and contorted it is sometimes unrecognizable or not admissible.
Keep in mind that the jury - if there ever is one - is made up of people like you and your neighbors. Lawyers don't award damages. One set of lawyers seeks them; another set of lawyers tries to avoid a financial award. The jury decides - not one set of lawyers or the other.
It is supposed to be a jury of peers. Problem is professional people seldom serve, it's usually people who can't get out of serving, often a jury's education level is low enough not to understand complex material put before it. I have served before where jurors wanted awards for BOTH sides, like the judge was writing the checks! Professional jurors might not be a bad idea and would curb a lot of the BS drama and dog & pony shows put on by the lawyers.
Next, the LAWYERS strike many of the jury that may not be favorable. The jury is often charged up after the lawyers put on a pep-rally to pump them up and trigger every emotion they can. Kind of 'in the heat of the moment'. Jurors DO carry some blame too. O.J. Simpson's jury made a decision disregarding the facts, to make a statement about the LA Police rather than O. J. But they had to be stirred up by the 'dream team' first.
Good Argument Jim!
|
|
