In a recent trial, the jury sent out a message wondering what is the most they could award. The attorneys for Ford decided to settle rather than wait for the verdict. This happens quite often that cases resolve based upon impressions attorneys get from the jury questions. Sometimes you guess right sometimes not. I have had a similar question "Can we award more than the Plaintiff requested?" the case did not settle and the jury awarded less than we asked for. When I asked them why they sent out the question they said it was just something we wanted to know. It has always been a risk to try a case, but the Texas Supreme Court has taken another major step to subvert the role of the juries in Texas. After Ford agreed to the settlement they spoke to the jury and discovered they probably would have won the trial. Did they chalk it up to a bad decision on their part and move on? No they appealed the case claiming possible juror misconduct or jury tampering. These types of claims are generally desperate laughable attempt to cover up the misjudgment by the party or attorneys, in this case even though the trial court and Corpus Court of Appeals found no basis to allow Ford to explore and make these claims, the Texas Supreme Court unanimously agreed to allow Ford to pursue their claims.
It is disturbing that this is the same Court which is arguing that Texas should to do away with elections for their positions because it would do away with the appearance of being swayed by contributors. Is it an appearance and who are their major contributors? I think you can guess.
How would making them less accountable to the citizens of Texas improve the Court?
What if the roles had been reversed? Does anyone believe that if the Plaintiff had settled for a minimum amount because the jury in the same case sent out a note asking if there was a minimum they had to award and they later learned that the jury verdict would have been for several million dollars that the Supreme Court would have ruled the same way.
Let me know what you think.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Supreme Court - Result Driven
In June 1997, Mr. Mendez was driving his Mazda minivan carrying six passengers on Interstate 25 in New Mexico. The left rear tire, a steel-belted radial tire manufactured by Cooper Tire, lost its tread. Mendez lost control of the vehicle, and it rolled several times, ejecting six passengers. Four of the passengers died at the scene or shortly thereafter. The jury heard from three separate experts presented by the Mendez family, Mr. Milner who is a professional engineer with degrees in metallurgy and engineering. Mr. Grogan who authored a book entitled An Investigator’s Guide to Tire Failures and numerous articles on tire failures and Mr. Crate who has a degree in chemistry. After a long and detailed trial in which the judge ruled that the experts were qualified and the jury heard from experts and witnesses for both sides, they found in favor of the Mendez family and held that the Cooper tire had a manufacturing defect which caused the tire to fail and and the van to roll over.
Almost a decade later, in January 2006 the Texas Supreme Court determined that all three experts testimony was inadequate to support the verdict. This despite the undisputed evidence and testimony that the tire lost it tread while driving down the road in a normal manner. The jury heard all the evidence and could judge the credibility of each witnesses with their own eyes and hear the truth in their words with their ears. Yet, the Supreme Court years later determines that the trial judge was wrong in letting the testimony in, that the jury was wrong in deciding the case after listening and evaluating the evidence and only they who have not seen or heard any of the actual testimony can determine who is qualified and who is telling the truth. Is it any wonder our Supreme Court wants to do away elections for their positions and wants to reduce the juries ability to decide cases? It is so much easier just to decide what the result should be.
On the next blog, we will look at another case in which the Supreme Court threw out the work of the trial judge and jury and reversed the case. In that one, they even changed the rules of the trial after the trial was over.
Almost a decade later, in January 2006 the Texas Supreme Court determined that all three experts testimony was inadequate to support the verdict. This despite the undisputed evidence and testimony that the tire lost it tread while driving down the road in a normal manner. The jury heard all the evidence and could judge the credibility of each witnesses with their own eyes and hear the truth in their words with their ears. Yet, the Supreme Court years later determines that the trial judge was wrong in letting the testimony in, that the jury was wrong in deciding the case after listening and evaluating the evidence and only they who have not seen or heard any of the actual testimony can determine who is qualified and who is telling the truth. Is it any wonder our Supreme Court wants to do away elections for their positions and wants to reduce the juries ability to decide cases? It is so much easier just to decide what the result should be.
On the next blog, we will look at another case in which the Supreme Court threw out the work of the trial judge and jury and reversed the case. In that one, they even changed the rules of the trial after the trial was over.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Texas Supreme Court
Chief Justice Wallace B. Jefferson -- Texas Bar Journal April 2009
“I am concerned by the public’s perception that money in judicial races influences outcomes.” “Polls asking about this perception find that more than 80 percent of those questioned believe contributions influence a judge’s decision.” “Justice must be blind – it must be as blind to party affiliation as to the litigant’s social or financial status. The rule of law resonates across party lines.”
The Chief Justice is recommending that we do away with elections of judges and let the governor or some other politician decide who should become judges. I disagree. Texans are independent, strong and smart. We do not want anyone deciding what is best for us,especially some politician. It doesn't matter to me if it is a Democrat, Republican or Independent that would be the appointing the judge, in my opinion it is wrong. It is strange that this argument only comes up when one party senses that the other could sweep elections and get rid of those elected. I have seen excellent judges from both parties voted out of offices simply because they had a D or R designation and it would be good to do stop that, but doing away with elections is not the way.
“I am concerned by the public’s perception that money in judicial races influences outcomes.” “Polls asking about this perception find that more than 80 percent of those questioned believe contributions influence a judge’s decision.” “Justice must be blind – it must be as blind to party affiliation as to the litigant’s social or financial status. The rule of law resonates across party lines.”
The Chief Justice is recommending that we do away with elections of judges and let the governor or some other politician decide who should become judges. I disagree. Texans are independent, strong and smart. We do not want anyone deciding what is best for us,especially some politician. It doesn't matter to me if it is a Democrat, Republican or Independent that would be the appointing the judge, in my opinion it is wrong. It is strange that this argument only comes up when one party senses that the other could sweep elections and get rid of those elected. I have seen excellent judges from both parties voted out of offices simply because they had a D or R designation and it would be good to do stop that, but doing away with elections is not the way.
I couldn't agree more with the Chief Justice that something should be done to stop the influence of money in decisions, but the solution is not to do away with electing judges. A better solution is to provide information to the public regarding the judges, their voting records, where they get their contributions and money and finally do away with party designation on the ballots or election materials.
If the Supreme Court truly wants to do away with the perception of money influencing their decisions, here are a few suggestions: 1st turn over all financial records relating to who has contributed to you in any manner, 2nd stop pandering to those whose purpose is to do away with the justice system, 3rd try defending the justice and jury system which holds people and corporations accountable for their actions instead of finding/creating new ways to excuse their actions.
In the next few weeks I will be looking at the some of the Supreme Court decisions over the last decade or so and present some issues and see what you would decide and compare it to what was actually decided by the Court. As always I welcome any and all comments and opinions, let me hear from you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
