Well, there are some lawyers who rely on their ability to sway juries’ emotions, rather than relying on what the rest of us might call things like “facts” and “law.” This lawyer may have realized that his brilliant strategy (“pity my client! pity him!”) wouldn’t have worked with you.
But, going back to my point (and thank you for the illustration), juries make the trial very real. Once you were seated, Rick, both sides had a concrete reason to fear having to make their proof. Particularly if the plaintiff’s story comes down to, “I’m hurt; make the rich corporation pay me even if it’s not their fault; they’ll never miss the money.” Or if the science is weak for the defendant, and he feared you would believe the plaintiff and sway the rest of the jury because of your background.
rbroome, good luck tomorrow. And thanks for showing up. Means the world to us lawyers.
One thing you may consider is that jury clerks don’t necessarily know how many trials may be jury-ready on a particular day, unless you are in a very rural or slow-moving courthouse. This is particularly true as jury summons are probably prepared and sent out weeks or months in advance.
Perhaps the jury procedures call for something like 40 jurors to be called every court day unless there is a particular reason to deviate (like a partiularly difficult to pick trial starting or it being the last day before a holiday weekend). On any given day, there may be a different number of trials starting depending on the vagaries of judge and counsel availability, motions, appeals, adjournments, settlement and whatever else. In addition, the jury clerk has to summon more jurors than necessary for the expected trials because of some jurors not showing up, illnesses, dismissed jurors and the like.
So, it might have been that in addition to the single trial that showed up on the calendar on the day you were there, there were trials previously scheduled for that day which had been settled or ajdourned before you got there. Or, it might have been you just showed up on a particularly slow day. Even if it turned out there were no trials on the calendar that day at all, just having a pool of jurors showing up every day keeps the wheels of justice turning because litigants know their case can be heard.
One time when I had jury duty in Massachusetts, all cases settled and we were sent home. The judge told us that if not enough jurors had showed up to seat juries for all cases, then probably none of the defendants would have entered pleas and one or more of them would have had their cases dismissed because there was no jury available for their speedy trial. This could have been total bullshit to keep us from rioting, though.
I was on a civil jury in Oakland for about five minutes - it was a woman who claimed to have been injured in an elevator on BART. We got sworn in, dismissed for the day, and when we came back the next morning we were told that the case was settled about the time we had left.
The attorney for BART questioned us - the plaintiff attorney asked none at all. I had a strong sense that he felt the BART settlement (which I never saw, of course) was fair, and that the plaintiff perhaps was hoping for a sympathetic jury - which we did not seem to be. Once she saw who she got, he was able to convince her that settling was in her best interests, saving everyone time and money.
Yes, but you should know that there are other plausible interpretations, as well. In some jurisdictions, motions in limine are filed or argued the first day of trial. (A motion in limine is a preliminary motion, and it can cover just about anything. It can be as simple as “Motion in Limine To Preclude Plaintiff From Referring To Defendant As ‘That Mean Corporation,’” to something much more dispositive, like a motion to preclude an expert from testifying that, when granted, guts the case.)
So it may well be that some dispositive motion was granted that made the settlement appear better.
Some judges believe in putting pressure on parties to settle, so the parties may have been close to settlement and the judge still required them to go forward with the trial to make sure they all got the settlement done.
You’ll probably never know, but your explanation is as good as any other. Although as a warning: sometimes juries aren’t what they seem to be. It may very well be that the BART attorney felt you were too pro-plaintiff, and so sweetened the pot.