Judges: The Fix Is In

If the jury doesn’t get it right, the judge will fix it.  That seems to be the mentality behind some of the grossly inflated jury awards we have observed through the years, that there is a mechanism in place to "correct" inappropriate verdicts and keep jurors in check.  It’s not an illogical assumption, since judges can and do overturn or throw out verdicts.  Earlier this month, a judge struck down a $7.1 million discrimination verdict against former Los Angeles Times sports columnist T.J. Simers, ruling there was insufficient evidence to support his claims.  Given this seems to be a finding for the jury to make, especially if the case was able to get past the summary judgment stage, coverage of the judge’s ability to make this ruling will likely feed the public’s misconception that judges can overrule an erroneous jury award. Just two years ago, one of our own national surveys showed 78 percent of jury-eligible respondents throughout the country believe that if the case makes it to trial, they would assume the plaintiff’s side of the case has at least some merit.  We have explored this in more detail during our focus groups and learned many jurors believe there is some sort of legal body or process that evaluates cases prior to trial, and if a lawsuit gets to the courtroom, someone somewhere has determined it’s probably worth something. During voir dire, it is crucial to learn which of your potential jurors share these beliefs in order to even the playing field.  Otherwise, the plaintiff is clearly going to enjoy some advantages going in to the process.  Further, jurors need to understand there is no "checks and balances" process that will automatically reverse or alter their verdict if it’s not the "right" one, and thus their decision should be based on reason. If you are interested in evaluating how these fallacies can be more thoroughly explored during voir dire, please contact Senior Vice President Claire Luna at cluna@juryimpact.net or 714.754.1010.