Article: Dennis Quaid and His Wife Settle with Hospital

According to the Associated Press:

Documents show Dennis Quaid and his wife have agreed to a a $750,000 settlement with a hospital that gave his newborn twins an overdose of blood thinner. A petition filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on Monday shows the Quaids and Cedars-Sinai Medical Center have agreed on the parents' damages, but can still pursue claims for their children.

The documents state Cedars-Sinai is not admitting wrongdoing as part of the settlement.

Documents show the Quaids sued drug maker Baxter Healthcare Corp. in Illinois over the drug's packaging, but that case has been dismissed. The petition filed Monday indicates Baxter may also sue Cedars-Sinai, which administered too much Heparin to several patients in November 2007, including the Quaids' twins.

If you recall, the Quaids' twins, along with another newborn at Cedars-Sinai, were accidentally given 1,000 times the normal dosage of heparin. Instead of administering vials with a 10 unit per millileter concentration, the infants recieved 10,000 units per milliliter . According to the lawsuit against Cedar-Sinai, the adult and newborn medications were allegedly stored in the same place, providing opportunity for this very outcome.

The lawsuit against Baxter was a product liability case regarding the labeling and packaging of the vials, which it is alleged were strikingly similar for newborn and adult dosages. Baxter, which used a blue label for both the 10 and 1,000 unit vials, claimed Cedars-Sinai was responsible for improper use of their product.

When the suit was filed, Baxter spokeswoman said, "While we strive to clearly differentiate our products and dosages, no amount of differentiation will replace the value of clinicians carefully reviewing and reading a drug name and dose before dispensing and administering it."

Importantly, and thankfully, none of these infants suffered permanent damage. Sadly, three of six infants given the same 10,000 units in Indianapolis in 2006 were not as fortunate and passed away.

When They Make This Into a Movie, I REALLY Hope They Do a Better Casting Job

According to the Associated Press, Doreen Giuliano, whose son was convicted of murder in 2003, decided to go undercover in search of information that could possibly result in a repeal of his conviction.

And by undercover, I mean:

...blonde dye job, fake tan, sexy wardrobe, phony name -- and began spying on jurors. She befriended one juror to root out any possible misdeeds at the trial, and for nearly eight months, they drank at bars, smoked marijuana and shared meals in her tiny Brooklyn hideaway.

Apparently it worked, because the juror she zeroed in on as a target, Jason Allo, started singing like a canary.

Among other things, the motion accuses the 33-year-old Allo of concealing that he had personal knowledge that Giuliano's son, John Giuca, ran with a rough crowd, and of defying orders to avoid news coverage once the highly publicized proceedings started. It argues that Allo "admitted the outside information he obtained about the case prejudiced him against Mr. Giuca."

In addition to mentioning the rarity of murder convictions being overturned, the article also provides some information about Mrs. Giuliano's son's conviction:

A jury deliberated only two hours before convicting Giuca of second-degree murder in 2005. He and the gunman were sentenced to 25 years to life in prison by a judge who told them that because the killing was callous, "my sentence will be callous."[emphasis added]

Yeah, I somehow don't think that one's going to be overturned, regardless of what Mr. Allo offered up.

The thing that bothers me about this story is the claim by both Mr. Allo and Mrs. Giuliano that there was no physical contact. I'm just wondering how someone can be "seductive" if they never actually seduce anyone. And, well, I submit a photo for further discussion:



You're telling me vegan Vin Diesel started yapping to this supposedly "seductive" older woman because they were BFF and nothing more? Just pals who share joints, tabs at bars, and the cozy confines of small Brooklyn apartments? Really?

Definitely a Thing That Makes You Go Hmmm...

CLICK HERE FOR THE ENTIRE ARTICLE...

Survey: Half of primary-care doctors would leave medicine

According to CNN:

Nearly half the respondents in a survey of U.S. primary care physicians said that they would seriously consider getting out of the medical business within the next three years if they had an alternative.

The survey, released this week by the Physicians' Foundation, which promotes better doctor-patient relationships, sought to find the reasons for an identified exodus among family doctors and internists, widely known as the backbone of the health industry.

According to the survey, 49% said they would consider walking away from medicine because they are "overwhelmed" by the red tape created by insurance companies and government entities.

Also interesting to note was the effect this growing sentiment could have on the future of medicine.

A U.S. shortage of 35,000 to 40,000 primary care physicians by 2025 was predicted at last week's American Medical Association annual meeting.

...

And if that many physicians stopped practicing, that could be devastating to the health care industry.

"We couldn't survive that," says Dr. Walker Ray, vice president of the Physicians Foundation. "We are only producing in this country a thousand to two thousand primary doctors to replace them. Medical students are not choosing primary care."

And let's not forget one of the primary factors driving a distaste for a career in medicine: lawsuits and the effect they have on medical malpractice insurance rates.

To manage their daily work schedules, many survey respondents reported making changes. With lower reimbursement from insurance companies and the cost of malpractice insurance skyrocketing, these health professionals say it's not worth running a practice and are changing careers....

This is a sad state of affairs.

CLICK HERE FOR THE FULL ARTICLE...

Lord Justice: Web-savvy young make bad jurors

This is an aspect of jury selection we frequently discuss with our clients: Younger, web-proficient jurors tend to make worse, less receptive jurors.

Young people brought up with the Internet are not used to listening for long periods and would not make good jurors, according to the most senior judge in England and Wales.

By Christopher Hope, Home Affairs Editor - Telegraph

In a speech, Lord Judge of Draycote, the Lord Chief Justice, said it might be better to present information for young jurors on screens because that is how they were used to digesting information.

He said: "Most are technologically proficient. Many get much information from the Internet. They consult and refer to it. They are not listening. They are reading. "One potential problem is whether, learning as they do in this way, they will be accustomed, as we were, to listening for prolonged periods.

"Even if they have the ability to endure hours and days of sitting listening, how long would it be before some ask for the information on which they have to make their decision to be provided in forms which adapt to modern technology?

He said: "Our system of jury trials depends on 12 good men and women and true coming to court and listening to the case. Orality is the crucial ingredient of the adversarial system.

"Witnesses speak and answer questions. Counsel speak and address the jury. Judges speak and give directions."

Currently information is provided on screens to jurors, such as in complex fraud trials, but "not without difficulty and with great expense", he said.

Younger jurors, sometimes called the MTV Generation, have been brought up on 24-hour news, frenetic action movies, incessant advertising, feverish competition for their attention and disposable income, and more consumer choices than ever imagined. Call them the IGIG, or Instant Gratification Internet Generation.

These jurors, when they need an answer to a question, acquire the information as quickly as they can type into Google or Wikipedia. When I was growing up and needed the answer to who the 23rd Vice President was (Adlai Stevenson--I just Googled it), it was essentially the Dewey Decimal System or nothing.

Anyhow, it's not surprising that jurors accustomed to obtaining information and consumer goods in mere seconds, could become impatient with a judicial system set up to slowly introduce information from both sides over the course of weeks.

Although the article does not explore this, shorter attention spans can also be dangerous because these jurors--accustomed to quickly forming opinions about complex issues based on soundbites and 3-minute news pieces--also tend to quickly take a stand on their trial verdict, before opening arguments conclude. This is a concern with jurors of all ages, genders and races, but in our experience is more prevalent among young, attention span-challenged jurors.

So how do you find out if a juror is web-savvy? In our experience, the simplest is asking whether they belong to social-networking sites, such as Facebook or MySpace, or if they Twitter or maintain a personal blog. In addition to being an indication of web-sophistication, obtaining this information can also provide insight into how beneficial or unfavorable that juror could be.

If a juror has a web page on a social networking site, it allows our jury selection team to look them up and glean basic information not included in (or removed by opposing counsel) the juror questionnaire. Jurors may have revealed certain information about themselves on their web pages related to lifestyle, personal outlook, or political views. Even if the page is set to "Private," at the very least confirming a juror has a page can be an indication they are more web-savvy than those without.

Lastly, this topic highlights the importance of presenting all jurors with simple, effective visual presentations in addition to simple, effective themes that play to their predispositions and IGIG tendencies.

CLICK HERE FOR THE ENTIRE ARTICLE, YOU WEB-SAVVY YOUNGSTER

CNN: Juror who vanished from Stevens trial went to California horse race

Your jury system at work, everyone:

WASHINGTON (CNN) – A woman who had been a juror in the criminal trial of Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens told a judge Monday she made up a story about her father dying, so she could go to California for a horse race.

The judge last week initially accepted her story about a family emergency, but was later unable to reach her to learn when she would return.

Here's where it gets good:

"I feel bad about missing the last day or two of the trial," [Marian] Hinnant said following Monday's hearing. "I do not feel bad about going to California."

...

"I couldn't think of a, well, on Thursday afternoon, they'd not finished deliberating, so I thought by then we would be through, and I came home and I thought, 'Well, I'm going,'" she said. "My plane leaves at 6 o'clock in the morning, so I called him (the judge) up and told him my father died, in
California."

Sullivan closed the matter without any punishment against the woman for her absence.

It's not as if this is a trial centered on someone being slandered on the internet--this is a political corruption trial of a major, extremely powerful U.S. Senator.

Look, I understand jury duty is the butt of a lot of jokes and very few people are genuinely excited about getting $5 a day and a brown bag lunch, but it is a civic duty. And just because it isn't Disneyland, it doesn't give people--especially those who have already committed to serve--the right to play hooky with no consequences.

By the way, check out the Comments section of the article to gauge America's reaction. CLICK HERE FOR THE ENTIRE ARTICLE...

Cut it Out

Straight from the Waking Nightmares file comes the story of a 61-year-old man who went in for a circumcision and came out with an amputated penis (for those of you wondering what would make a man suddenly decide to have a circumcision after 61 years, according to MSNBC the circumcision was intended to treat inflammation).

Phillip Seaton, 61, and his wife are seeking unspecified compensation from Dr. John M. Patterson and the medical practice that performed the circumcision for “loss of service, love and affection.” The Seatons also are seeking unspecified punitive damages from Patterson and the medical practice, Commonwealth Urology.

A woman who answered the phone at Commonwealth Urology would not take a message for the doctor Thursday. But the Seaton’s attorney said the doctor’s post-surgical notes show the doctor thought he detected cancer and removed the penis. Attorney Kevin George said a later test did detect cancer.

The lawsuit filed earlier this month in state court claims Patterson removed Seaton’s penis without consulting either Phillip or Deborah Seaton, or giving them an opportunity to seek a second opinion.

The couple also sued the anesthesiologist, Dr. Oliver James of Shelbyville, claiming he used a general anesthesia even though Seaton asked that it not be administered.

There are certain cases in which no matter how good the medicine or the expert testimony, the odds of a positive defense outcome are slim. Focus group participants have consistently demonstrated that any case involving the loss of private part use--or especially the loss of private parts--results in a near-automatic desire to award money.

To that point, the article casually mentions:

The Seatons’ suit is similar to one in which an Indianapolis man was awarded more than $2.3 million in damages after he claimed his penis and left testicle were removed without his consent during surgery for an infection in 1997.

However, in this case cancer was confirmed in the penis, making the "medical emergency" argument at least plausible. However, the consent issue will likely be a significant obstacle in making arguments about medical necessity. Brutal.

CLICK HERE FOR THE FULL ARTICLE...

Freakonomics Blog: Juror Unanimity Isn't Necessarily a Great Thing

Here is a compelling take on the unanimity requirement of our legal system:

Juror Unanimity Isn’t Necessarily a Great Thing: A Guest Post
By Ethan Leib

Thanks for putting up with my quirky intellectual agenda of friendship and the law in the last two posts. For my final post, I thought I would highlight a more traditional area of my legal research: the jury.

There is something quirky at play here too: the U.S. is one of the few democracies around the world to have a unanimity rule for juror decision-making. The Times’s Adam Liptak has been doing a series on American Exceptionalism — “commonplace aspects of the American justice system that are virtually unique in the world” — but he has yet to focus on the puzzling persistence of unanimity as our jury decision rule.

Here are a few facts that make unanimity a non-obvious choice for juror decision-making.

1) We don’t require unanimity for any other important decision in our pluralistic polity. Our Supreme Court doesn’t decide by unanimity and neither do our legislators.

2) No other modern country (save Canada and a few jurisdictions in Australia) requires it.

3) We require unanimity to acquit as well as convict, so the idea that it contributes to protecting defendants is not fully accurate.
4) The symmetrical unanimity requirement contributes to inefficiency by giving us hung verdicts more than necessary.

5) Our juries have gotten more diverse as we’ve made it harder to get out of service and as we’ve grown more inclusive in our political system. With that diversity, majoritarianism seems more appropriate.

6) Empirical evidence tends to support the view that verdicts don’t change all that much when you change the decision rule. So the idea that unanimity contributes to certainty is probably overblown.

7) There is also empirical evidence suggesting that people assigned a unanimous decision rule will often agree to decide by supermajority (albeit unanimously) — meaning that in such cases, there is no difference between the two rules, except that some jurors agree to pretend that they agree with a verdict from which, in fact, they may strongly dissent.

8) We all know that many people are willing to falsify their preferences by changing their votes to agree with the majority; the incentives for doing so are especially high when one is a holdout juror being berated by other jurors because everyone wants to get home faster.

9) We don’t have such stringent unanimity rules in the context of the civil jury or courts martial, yet both those systems are respected and deemed legitimate by the public. Moreover, the few states that have experimented with relaxed jury-decision rules for the criminal jury — Oregon and Louisiana — do not suffer especial deficits in legitimacy.

10) Unanimity is often an illusion. Suppose a jury hangs, leading to a retrial. The second jury empanelled to try the defendant then convicts unanimously. Despite this second “unanimous” verdict, the truth is that, of a total of 24 jurors who heard the evidence, fewer than 24 were persuaded to convict. Indeed, it’s possible in theory that only thirteen — a bare majority — were persuaded, if in the first trial the holdout favored conviction, not acquittal.

These facts should be enough to get us to question our fealty to unanimity. At the very least, I think it is high time we stopped requiring unanimity for acquittals.

Article: Airline Passenger Strikes Back and Wins Money from the Airlines

From CNN Money, we read about a victim of the infamous "weather-related" flight cancellation. As many of you know, if an airline cancels a flight they are often times obligated to refund your fare. However, if the cancellation is due to weather conditions, they don't owe you a dime (what, you didn't read the fine print?).

It seems to me this system provides financial incentive for airlines to more readily blame cancellations on weather, even when those claims of "no-fly" conditions are stretching credibility. And this man took them to task for it:

On Feb. 21, 2008, Mitchell Berns heard every flier's two least favorite words: weather related.

Citing snow, Delta Airlines was canceling his flight from Las Vegas to New York City and rescheduling him for a redeye connecting in Boston. With 47% of all delays so far in 2008 caused by weather (up 5% from last year), most fliers can relate. And they know that normally this story ends with a bleary-eyed tale recounted the next day at the water cooler. Not this time. It ends in court, with our traveler $838 richer.

Berns, 55, is a securities litigator with Lane Sash & Larrabee in White Plains, N.Y. On that night he was flying home from a romantic getaway with his wife, who was pregnant with twins. Seeing that other airlines' planes were still departing as scheduled, Berns asked Delta to refund his ticket so that he could book one of those flights. They told him (politely, as he recalls) that weather-related cancellations or delays are not the airline's fault and do not come with a refund.

Berns checked the National Weather Service report. It said snow that day was expected at five the next morning -- hours after his flight was scheduled to land. He and several other passengers from his Delta flight easily booked a JetBlue flight departing at the same time. His tab: $938. He landed at J.F.K. on schedule.

Back at home, Berns did what any consumer with $15 (in New York City) and a working knowledge of English (or Spanish, in most states) can do: He filed a small-claims suit against Delta for $938. Delta did not show up to defend itself, so on June 12 he won a default judgment.

When a legal analyst from the airline called him two weeks later to negotiate a payment, he declined an offer of frequent-flier miles ("Confederate currency," in his words) and made a counteroffer: If you pay me within two weeks, I'll knock $100 off. Delta agreed but asked for a confidentiality agreement. Berns said they couldn't have both, and Delta took the discount. (A Delta spokesperson did not respond to repeated requests for comment.)

The real kicker of this article is the fact that flights from other airlines had flights departing at the same time. Obviously airlines have differing weather policies, but booking a JetBlue flight while being told Delta's planes couldn't fly mitigates any claims of severe weather.

Again, with this system in place, it's no surprise supposedly weather-related cancellations have increased 5% since 2007.

Click here for the full article...

Judge Swears In All-White Jury

An all-white jury will judge O.J. Simpson and a co-defendant on kidnapping and robbery charges after defense lawyers lost a contentious courtroom battle to include two African-American women on the panel.

District Attorney David Roger gave the judge what he called "race neutral" reasons for removing the two with his peremptory challenges, and defended the final makeup of the jury chosen late Thursday night, saying that two of six alternate jurors are black.

Both of the women who were removed had strong religious views, and the prosecutor said he thought one of them would be inclined to "forgive" Simpson while the other said she was hesitant to send anyone to prison.

Simpson's 1995 acquittal on murder charges came from a predominantly black jury.
Clark County District Judge Jackie Glass said she saw no evidence of a systematic exclusion of African-Americans. The current panel also is made up of nine women and three men.
Defense attorneys for Simpson and co-defendant Clarence "C.J." Stewart, who are both black, moved to dismiss the entire jury panel and start again but the judge rejected the motion.

Lawyers and the judge worked into the night to select the final group, using peremptory challenges, which are reserved for removing prospective jurors without stating a cause.

The final pool of prospects included a number of people who disagreed with Simpson's acquittal in the murders of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman. But they said they could put that aside and weigh the Las Vegas case on its own merits.

Simpson, 61, is accused with Stewart, 54, of kidnapping, armed robbery and other crimes for allegedly stealing items from two sports memorabilia dealers in a hotel room confrontation last year. They have pleaded not guilty. Each could face life in prison with the possibility of parole if convicted of kidnapping, and mandatory prison time if convicted of armed robbery.

Opening statements were scheduled for Monday, and the trial is expected to last five weeks.
As they left the courthouse in darkness, Simpson attorney Yale Galanter said he was confident of his case.

"I don't think my client did anything wrong, I don't think he broke any laws. I'm glad that we're finally at the point where we can get these issues resolved," he said.

As Simpson drove away, he paused to sign a T-shirt for some fans. It was emblazoned with the words, "Pray for O.J."

Earlier, the judge issued an order refusing to release questionnaires filled out by the jurors who make up the panel. She said she had promised the panel she would keep their answers secret.

Colby Williams, a lawyer representing The Associated Press and Las Vegas Review-Journal who sought disclosure of the questionnaires, said he has filed an appeal with the Nevada Supreme Court on grounds that the public and the media have a First Amendment right of access to information about jurors in a criminal case.

Associated Press

Chris St. Hilaire on KNX 1070

Chris St. Hilaire, President and CEO of Jury Impact, was interviewed today on KNX 1070 AM regarding the OJ Simpson trial. Be sure to tune in!



If you're not in Southern California, you can listen online at http://www.blogger.com/www.knx1070.com/

OJ Part Deux

Oh boy. Here we go again.

According to CNN, OJ Simpson arrived in a Las Vegas courtroom today for the start of his robbery and kidnapping trial.

Ugh, I'm not sure if I can handle another OJ trial. The article states:

The court has eliminated 252 of 500 potential jurors based on their answers to a questionnaire. Attorneys for the prosecution and defense will start selecting a jury Monday, trying to find 12 jurors and four alternates from the remaining pool of potential jurors.

They eliminated half the jury pool right off the bat? Man, I'm dying to get my hands on that questionaire.

On the radio I heard the defense attorneys confidently proclaim that OJ could get a fair trial. That seems rather optimistic, but nothing compared to this gem from a "legal analyst":

Attorneys expect many jurors to have heard about the case but are looking for people who will make decisions based on the evidence presented at trial, said legal analyst Jim Moret.

"It's not whether or not you've heard a lot about the case," he said. "It's whether you can set that aside and listen to the evidence that's presented in court and determine the case based solely on that."

Right. Because jurors commonly disregard preconcieved notions and biases and make decisions strictly according to the facts. Good luck with that.



Click here to read the entire story...

Mattel Snags $100 Million in Bratz Lawsuit

Toymaker Mattel, probably best known as the maker of Barbie, has been embroiled in a copyright infringement lawsuit related to the popular Bratz dolls, manufactured by MGA Entertainment.

Mattel, headquartered out here in Southern California, sued MGA originally for $1.8 billion (you read that correctly--billion), claiming current MGA employee Carter Bryant (Mattel's former employee) came up with the idea for Bratz on Mattel's time. Specifically, Mattel accused Mr. Bryant of sneaking around behind Mattel's back and working as a consultant for MGA.

The Bratz dolls, which are geared more to today's *ahem* modern values, successfully carved a nice chunk out of Barbie's marketshare.

Plenty of ugliness and accusations ensued, and ultimately a jury awarded Mattel $100 million--a fraction of the original damages sought.

Worse for Mattel, their share price took a sizeable hit this morning. To make matters even worse, some reports estimate Mattel's legal costs in the first half of this year at $44 million--mostly stemming from the Bratz suit.

Ouch.

But hey, a win's a win. And Mattel, known for aggressive litigation to protect their Barbie brand, probably just considers it a cost of doing business.

Lawsuits R Us

TIME magazine informs us that a lawyer has come up with a, um, creative way to tap into Americans' voracious appetite for litigation.

As if there weren't enough people out there suing each other, now a Florida attorney has come up with a way to make the process even easier.

Beginning next month, anyone with access to the Internet should be able to log onto WhoCanISue.com. The new website plans to help consumers determine whether they actually have a case and help them find an attorney from a list of lawyers who advertise their expertise on the website. The attorneys will pay an annual fee of $1,000 to appear on the site, plus an additional amount of their own choosing that will determine how prominently they appear in the listings on the site. The website will vet the attorneys to make sure they are in good standing with their state bar associations.

For those of you concerned about this type of service encouraging frivolous lawsuits, don't worry. We get calming reassurance from the company's founder:

But Wolfe maintains his service could just as easily help someone realize he doesn't have a case — or that, while they may have a legal claim, it won't generate enough money to interest an attorney to take it on.

Phew! I feel better.

Click here for the full article...

You Don't Say...

In a recent article, In U.S., Partisan Expert Witnesses Frustrate Many, The New York Times explores a subject that we frequently discuss with our clients: The tendency for plaintiff and defense expert witnesses to "cancel each other out."

Judge Denver D. Dillard was trying to decide whether a slow-witted Iowa man accused of acting as a drug mule was competent to stand trial. But the conclusions of the two psychologists who gave expert testimony in the case, Judge Dillard said, were “polar opposites.”

One expert, who had been testifying for defendants for 20 years, said the accused, Timothy M. Wilkins, was mentally retarded and did not understand what was happening to him. Mr. Wilkins’s verbal I.Q. was 58, the defense expert said.

The prosecution expert, who had testified for the state more than 200 times, said that Mr. Wilkins’s verbal I.Q. was 88, far above the usual cutoffs for mental retardation, and that he was perfectly competent to stand trial.

Judge Dillard, of the Johnson County District Court in Iowa City, did what American
judges and juries often do after hearing from dueling experts: he threw up his hands. The two experts were biased in favor of the parties who employed them, the judge said, and they had given predictable testimony. “The two sides have canceled each other out,” Judge Dillard wrote in 2005, refusing to accept either expert’s conclusion and complaining that “no funding mechanism exists for the court to appoint an expert.”

This really shouldn't come as much of a surprise. Most jurors are fairly adept at following the money and forming common sense conclusions about bias.

In most instances, expert witnesses for both sides boast credentials in education, training, and relevant experience--with neither being more credible than the other (on paper at least). We find that jurors, driven by the common sense perception experts will cater testimony to support the side signing their check, often find that paid experts don't carry much sway. Jurors instead tend to focus on personality traits, whether the witness educates jurors in "plain english," and even tie colors and mannerisms when assigning credibility.

I found this amusing. The expert witness for the state provided a telling quote describing the experience:

“After you come out of court,” Dr. Welsh said, “you feel like you need a shower. They’re asking you to be certain of things you can’t be certain of.”

Another colorful quote:

“To put it bluntly, in many professions, service as an expert witness is not considered honest work,” Samuel R. Gross, a law professor at the University of Michigan, wrote in the Wisconsin Law Review. “The contempt of lawyers and judges for experts is famous. They regularly describe expert witnesses as prostitutes.”

And another zinger:

Martin Belli, the famed trial lawyer, endorsed this view. “If I got myself an impartial witness,” he once said, “I’d think I was wasting my money.”

This article strongly supports a sentiment we often share with clients, especially in medical malpractice cases: Expert witnesses mainly serve to support a jurors' initial perception of the case facts--and rarely influence jurors to switch to the other side.

Therefore, tapping into juror predispositions--the biases they are likely to walk into the courtroom with--and shaping expert testimony to conform to those preloads, is where legal teams should focus most of their energy. Relying on an expert witness, regardless of their impressive credentials or background, to turn the tides of juror sentiment, is fraught with risks given the likelihood for opposing witnesses to "cancel each other out."

Read the entire article...

Jury seated in lawsuit against Osteen's wife

From the Associated Press:

A jury was seated Wednesday in a lawsuit alleging the wife of nationally known pastor Joel Osteen assaulted a flight attendant.

Opening arguments were set for Thursday in a case Victoria Osteen's lawyer called "silly." But Reginald McKamie, attorney for Continental Airlines flight attendant Sharon Brown, said he hopes the trial will show "that celebrity status doesn't take precedence."

Brown accuses Victoria Osteen of assaulting her before the start of a 2005 flight from Houston to Vail, Colo. Brown alleges Victoria Osteen threw her against a bathroom door and elbowed her in the left breast during an angry outburst over a stain on her first-class seat. The Federal Aviation Administration fined Victoria Osteen $3,000 for interfering with a crew member.

Joel Osteen was at his wife's side Wednesday in court. McKamie said he expected to call the couple as witnesses.

Joel Osteen preaches at Lakewood Church, a Houston megachurch where about 42,000 people flock each week and where Victoria Osteen is co-pastor. His weekly television address is broadcast nationally and internationally.

Some potential jurors during questioning admitted to being star-struck by the Osteens and that their respect for them might affect their judgment.

"He has gotten me through a lot of tough times. I would believe what he has to say. I have a lot of respect for him," one female in the jury pool said.

Other potential jurors said they didn't like preachers or televangelists and that ministers can lie. Brown wants an apology and punitive damages amounting to 10 percent of Victoria Osteen's net worth as part of her suit.

Victoria Osteen's lawyer, Rusty Hardin, said before jury selection began Wednesday that Brown's claims are false and that what happened was a "minor incident." Hardin also asked a judge to throw out an FAA report detailing the alleged incident, saying the agency's investigation was "incredibly incomplete."

...

According to court documents, Brown claims that she suffers from anxiety and hemorrhoids because of the incident and said her faith was affected. She is also suing Osteen for medical expenses for counseling.

Brown had previously claimed she was attacked in another incident by an airport employee, according to a deposition she gave in the case.

So, to recap, suffering from hemorrhoids are worth 10% of another individual's net worth.

Read the entire article...

Juror: Judge and jury pressured me to convict man

Regardless of what the forewoman says, sometimes, despite the best jury instructions and intentions, jurors just want to go home.

RIVERHEAD, New York (AP) -- A juror who helped convict a black man of fatally shooting a white teenager said he felt pressured by other jurors and the judge to change his vote to guilty during a marathon deliberating session.

The jury convicted John White of second-degree manslaughter Saturday in the August 2006 shooting of 17-year-old Daniel Cicciaro Jr.

White, 54, remains free on bail and plans to appeal. He faces a prison term of five to 15 years.

The case drew national attention after defense attorneys argued that he feared a "lynch mob" had come to attack his family when a group of angry white teenagers gathered outside his home. The teens wanted to confront White's son.

Juror Francois Larche, who is white, said he and another juror changed their votes after enduring "a lot of psychological tactics" from fellow jurors during an unusual weekend session ordered by the judge over jurors' protests.

"It was a huge burden to bear," Larche, 46, told the New York Post in Monday's editions. He added, "I took a lot of heat."

Jury forewoman Maureen Steigerwald denied that the judge, a 12-hour deliberating session on Saturday -- the fourth day of deliberations -- or the holidays played a role in the jury's decision.

"The jury did a very careful, conscientious deliberate job," she told Newsday in Monday's editions.

Judge Barbara Kahn said the jury would have to return on Sunday if they didn't reach a decision. Larche told the Post the judge told them a mistrial would burden the families and the next jury.

"I thought about my family and the families of the other jurors," Larche said. "It was not worth it in the end."

Read the entire article...

Grand Juries Become Latest Abortion Battlefield

WICHITA, Kan. —Opponents of Dr. George Tiller and his clinic here, one of the nation’s few providers of late-term abortions, have tried many ways to stop him over three decades. They have held protests, lobbied lawmakers and complained persistently to state regulators and prosecutors. There have also been several acts of violence, including one in which Dr. Tiller was shot in both arms.

Now his opponents are using a legal tactic that some find startling and others consider inspired. They have turned to an unusual state statute, adopted in 1887, that allows ordinary citizens who gather enough signatures on a petition to demand that a grand jury investigate an alleged crime, a decision usually left to a prosecutor.

Tenacity on both sides of the issue. Especially the doctor who has been shot in both arms!

Click here to read the whole article...

Man Falls After Receiving Spirit, Sues

From The Smoking Gun:

Last June, Matthew Lincoln was attending an evening service at his nondenominational Tennessee church when he approached the altar where a visiting minister was offering individual prayers for parishioners.

Assigned "catchers" were present on the altar in case congregants fainted, fell, or otherwise lost control. When the minister, Robert Lavala, slightly touched his forehead, the Knoxville-area man "received the spirit and fell backwards."

Except nobody was there to catch him, Lincoln charges in a $2.5 million lawsuit filed yesterday against Lakewind Church and its pastors.

Lincoln, 58, claims that he fell backwards, striking his head against the "carpet-covered cement floor," according to the Circuit Court complaint, which was first reported by Courthouse News Service.

Click here for the full story...

R. Kelly Acquitted

I Believe He Can Fly:

R. Kelly has been acquitted of child pornography charges that he appeared on a videotape having sex with a girl as young as 13.

The jury read the verdict shortly after 2 p.m. They cleared the R&B superstar of all 14 counts.Kelly dabbed at his face with a handkerchief and hugged each of his four attorneys after the verdict was read.

The verdict brought to an end a criminal case that has been pending for six years. Kelly had argued from the beginning that he was not the man on the video, and the alleged victim said she was not the one who appeared either.

The graphic, sordid video shows the female dancing and urinating on the floor in the man's direction. He then has sex with and urinates on her.

Beyond a reasonable doubt:

In just two days, Kelly's lawyers called 12 witnesses. They included three relatives of the alleged victim who testified they did not recognize her as the female on the tape.

Click here for the full story...

Scott Peterson Back in Court

CNN.com informs us that Scott Peterson's civil trial is set to begin next month:

MODESTO, California (AP) -- Convicted killer Scott Peterson will be heading to trial again over the death of his pregnant wife, this time in civil court.

The parents of Laci Peterson have filed a wrongful death lawsuit against him, seeking a multimillion-dollar judgment.

A Stanislaus County Superior Court judge has ruled that Peterson would have to stand trial in the civil case.

A jury found him guilty in 2003 of killing Laci Peterson and her fetus and dumping the body in San Francisco Bay on Christmas Eve 2002.

At a hearing Friday, Peterson's defense attorney cited in court a videotape made at San Quentin State Prison in which he maintains his innocence.

The judge stayed his ruling until June 23 to allow lawyers to
appeal.

The trial is set to begin July 8.

Given the lower burden of proof in a civil case, things don't look too good for Ol' Scott (who, incidentally, was arrested with $15,000 in cash, four cell phones, multiple family members’ credit cards, camping gear, knives, tents, tarps, a dozen pairs of shoes, several changes of clothes, a gun, a shovel, rope, 24 blister packs of sleeping pills, Viagra, and his brother's driver's license). Just sayin'.

YIKES!

A nightmare come to life:

About 130 people aboard an American Airlines flight got a sharp scare after one of the MD-80's two jet engines was disabled by shards from a broken window in the passengers' cabin.

American Airlines spokesman Tim Smith said the outside pane of the triple-pane window shattered about 20 minutes after the 7:35 p.m. take-off Sunday from Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport.

Remember the hundreds of American Airlines flights cancelled a few months back due to shoddy maintenance? FYI, those were also MD-80s.

Click here to read the full article...

Texas Judge Returns 400 Children To Polygamist Sect

If you've been following the case of the polygamist compound in Texas, the children that were taken are being returned to their parents. The legal issue rested on whether or not Texas child welfare officials proved the children were in immediate danger before taking them. It's worth noting that there were no arrests in this case.

A Texas district court judge has signed an order returning custody of more than 400 children taken from a polygamist group's compound to their parents.

The order returning the children taken from the Yearning for Zion ranch to their parents comes a few days after the Texas Supreme Court ruled that the Texas Child Protective Services department overreached when it took the children away from their parents.

I think one of the most interesting aspects of this case is the language choice made by the media. For example, on talk radio this morning, they consistently used the word "sect." Yes, it is in fact a sect, so the use of that word is accurate. However, phonetically it's problematic: in a case underscored by allegations of sexual abuse, hearing "...the polygamist sect's" (say it out loud) conjures none-too-pleasant images. Intentional?

A less controversial (although perhaps not as accurate) language choice would be denomination, faction, group, or enclave.

Click here for the full article...

Texas Appeals Court Reverses Vioxx Judgment Against Merck

From CNNMoney.com:

A Texas appeals court on Thursday reversed a 2005 judgment against Merck & Co. (MRK) in the case of a woman who alleged her husband's use of the pain drug Vioxx caused his death.

The jury had awarded Carol Ernst $253.5 million in damages in the first Vioxx lawsuit to go to trial. The jury had concluded Merck's design and marketing of Vioxx was defective, and that its negligence caused the 2001 death of Bob Ernst. The damages award was subsequently reduced to $26.1 million under state law capping damages.

Merck appealed the judgment, arguing there wasn't sufficient evidence supporting the jury's verdict. That led to Thursday's reversal by Texas' Fourteenth Court of Appeals. The court concluded there was no evidence that Bob Ernst suffered a "thrombotic cardiovascular event," or heart attack triggered by a blood clot.

Apparently there is some controversy about whether Merck settled prematurely with other plaintiffs (to the tune of $4.85 billion).

Click here for the full article...

Lawyer Sues Delta for Ruining Vacation

This combines two of our favorite topics: Law and Travel! Apparently a New York attorney had himself a vacation from hell and lived to sue about it.

Richard Roth, who filed the lawsuit on behalf of himself and his mother, said he planned the Christmas 2007 trip to Buenos Aires to celebrate his mother's 80th birthday. She had grown up in the city, but had not returned in years, he said.

Instead, Roth, his two teenage children, his wife and mother spent three days in airports, went days without their luggage, were treated rudely by airline employees and were forced to spend $21,000 on unused hotel rooms in Argentina, replacement clothes, and other costs.

If I filed a lawsuit everytime I was treated rudely by airline personnel, I'd be a very busy person.

Click here for the full article...

Odd Laws

In North Carolina, it is illegal to hold more than two sessions of bingo per week in the same building (and those sessions must be less than 5 hours each).

§ 14‑309.8. Limit on sessions.

The number of sessions of bingo conducted or sponsored by an exempt organization shall be limited to two sessions per week and such sessions must not exceed a period of five hours each per session. No two sessions of bingo shall be held within a 48‑hour period of time. No more than two sessions of bingo shall be operated or conducted in any one building, hall or structure during any one calendar week and if two sessions are held, they must be held by the same exempt organization. This section shall not apply to bingo games conducted at a fair or other exhibition conducted pursuant to Article 45 of Chapter 106 of the General Statutes. (1983, c. 896, s. 3; c. 923, s. 217; 1983 (Reg. Sess., 1984), c. 1107, ss. 6, 7.)

The more you know!

Jet Lag Cure: Starvation

For those of you who travel frequently, this Yahoo! article may interest you. According to U.S. researchers, starving yourself before a flight might be the most effective way to combat jet lag.

Here comes the science:

Normally, the body's natural circadian clock in the brain dictates
when to wake, eat and sleep, all in response to light. But it seems a second clock takes over when food is scarce, and manipulating this clock might help travelers adjust to new time zones, they said.

"A period of fasting with no food at all for about 16 hours is
enough to engage this new clock," said Dr. Clifford Saper of Harvard Medical School, whose study appears in the journal Science.

Yes, you read that correctly: fasting for 16 hours. I don't know about you, but I think I'll take my chances with jet lag.

On the other hand, with airlines cutting snack service to save money, you might not have a choice whether to fast or not.

Click here for the full article.

R. Kelly Trial: 12 Ways to get kicked out of the jury pool

Here is a piece from the Chicago Tribune regarding attempts to seat a jury for R&B singer R. Kelly's trial. Yikes.

Advice from the R. Kelly trial: 12 ways to get kicked out of the jury pool
By Stacy St. Clair
Tribune staff reporter
5:26 AM CDT, May 15, 2008

Jury selection is expected to resume at 9 a.m., with 10 more Cook County residents available for vetting.There wasn't any progress Wednesday, with not a single person picked for the panel.

Candidate after candidate came in with excuses as to why he or she couldn't serve on the high-profile case.

If the dismissed jurors this week joined together, they could write a book: "How to Get Out of Jury Duty without Really Trying."

Some of the potential chapters:

I have a teenage daughter. Several axed jurors provided this explanation for why they couldn't give Kelly a fair trial. "I would have a hard time see anything involving a child without thinking of my child," one man said.

I would change the age of consent. Two who were kicked off offered this philosophy, one going so far as to suggest that "nature already had an age of [sexual] consent: puberty."I save lives. An oncologist was excused from duty after he told the judge that jury service would create a logistical nightmare for his patients.

Um, well, er, yes, I think I could be fair to Mr. Kelly. Maybe, yes. Nearly everyone who paused when asked if he or she could give the singer a fair trial got the boot from either the judge or the defense.I'm a cop One Niles police officer lasted only about two minutes in the interview room before he was dismissed because of his profession.

I (heart) R. Kelly. Nothing gets prospective jurors booted faster than telling the prosecution they are a fan of Kelly's. Just ask the woman who called him a "musical genius." When prodded to say something negative about Kelly, the best she could come up with was: "He and [rapper] Jay-Z don't get along?" Prosecutors bounced her soon after.

I'll change my vacation plans. Overeagerness to serve on the jury is a definite red flag to attorneys. When one man offered to rearrange a trip to see his parents, the prosecution bounced him for being star-struck.

Click here to read the full article...

Vioxx Ruling Overturned

A Texas appeals court has overturned a multi-million dollar verdict against Merck, the makers of the painkiller Vioxx. Retrials are currently pending in several other cases. Click on the link to read about the case and the latest developments.

http://www.setexasrecord.com/news/212383-texas-court-overturns-vioxx-ruling

Judicial Hellholes

The American Tort Reform Association released it's 6th annual Judicial Hellholes report with their rankings of "America's most unfair jurisdictions." How does your home state compare? Click on the link to learn more.

http://www.atra.org/reports/hellholes/

Judge Rules Georgia Award Caps Unconstitutional

Reports this week of a judge striking down monetary award caps on medical malpractice cases in Georgia may seriously impact tort reform law in the state. Click on the link to read more...

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/stories/2008/05/01/arrington_0502.html#

Simple Statistics

If social scientists are right and jurors only retain 10 percent of what they hear in a courtroom — more likely than not what they heard first — what can you do to make them remember the defense’s case?

Using only a few carefully chosen statistics or key numbers to illustrate a point is a great way to arm jurors with ammunition they can use in the deliberations room.

As an example, a general internal medicine patient died from a calf sarcoma after multiple tests in response to “arthritis-type” pain.

Focus group research in the case revealed that highlighting the extent of the efforts made to diagnose the patient’s condition was crucial. The defense formulated a phrase that was used repeatedly to reinforce its theme: “Four tests were done by three different radiologists, at two hospitals, and none of them saw any sign of cancer.”

After trial, exit interviews revealed those words rang out again and again during deliberations — “four tests, three radiologists, two hospitals, and no cancer!”

Used correctly, simple statistics and numbers help to illustrate a theme and help arguments resonate in jurors’ minds, which they will hopefully remember when it comes time to render a verdict.

"Making" the Right Jury

It's often asked whether there are sure-fire tricks to "picking the right juror."

First, it's important to keep in mind that you rarely "pick" anyone - the best you can do is eliminate the worst potential jurors. But if you can't always pick the "right" juror, there are opportunities to educate the jurors you get.

Consider this: A defense lawyer represented a corporate client who had taken a beating in the local press over the case. Worse, the judge refused a venue change, even though nearly every juror on the panel was familiar with the press' accounts.

After the lawyer used much of his allotted time to expose special biases among the jurors, he shifted his questioning from questions designed to expose and eliminate to questions designed to educate those who would ultimately serve.

"Who thinks there was a rush to judgment in the Duke Lacrosse case - I mean by the media?"

Nearly every hand on the panel went up.

The lawyer continued, "And who thinks that a lot of opinions about those three boys changed once the defense finally put forward its case - meaning what the media had originally written wasn't fair, or was at least incomplete?"

Again, nearly every hand was raised.

In the end, the lawyer couldn't "pick" the right jury, so he "made" it the right jury.