I had the privilege of being the foreperson on a medical malpractice trial in June 2024. Based on the expressions of most of the people during voir dire, “privilege” wasn’t the first word that was on their mind. Once selected, however, the countenance of the chosen changed dramatically. From the case summary we heard, the stakes were high. If the two defendants were found guilty, they would be financially burdened, and their reputations tarnished. If they weren’t, the decedent’s family would feel they had not received the accountability they sought for seven years.
Just a few weeks prior, I had watched the 1957 movie “12 Angry Men” (if you haven’t seen it, I highly recommend it). This was the third jury trial I’ve been selected for and second time I was elected foreperson, but the movie turned out to be a very helpful refresher course for what was to come. The movie reminded me of the dangers of cognitive bias and herd mentality and the powers of observation, critical thinking, and being independent. All of those factored into my leadership role on the jury.
The trial lasted a total of eight days, four and a half of which was the trial itself. During testimony and cross-examination and exhibits, I developed a new appreciation for attorneys and their staff. I know quite a few attorneys, and some have shared their trial experience. The level of preparation required and mastery of terms – the lead attorneys could teach a course on epidural steroid injection – demonstrated an amazing commitment to their craft. The presiding judge was masterful in his management of the courtroom. The bailiffs were extremely supportive of our needs. The overall excellence included the charging statement, collectively created by the judge and all attorneys, which was clear but carefully restrictive. In this case, the law mattered greatly.
As we left the jury box for the deliberation room on the sixth day, we all felt the weight of the decision we were selected to make. We took with us multiple pads of handwritten notes from numerous experts with conflicting opinions. Nobody on the jury was a medical practitioner and many of the terms during the trial were foreign to us, so we were reliant on what we heard in the courtroom to be self-defining.
My first act as foreperson was to take a private paper vote so everybody could say Guilty or Not Guilty without regard to the opinions of others. My second act was to work around the room clockwise so everyone could explain their rationale while introducing themselves. We were split evenly. At that point, I reached back to the movie for inspiration on how to engage a civil dialogue with the goal of a unanimous decision. It took almost three days, but eventually we reached a verdict.
Why am I sharing this in a blogpost? Because there are lessons to be learned for everyone involved in workers’ compensation. I will lay those out for your consideration in my next post.
