So, I’m co-defendant (with my ex) due to her ignoring part of the divorce agreement. In a separate case, I was awarded legal fees for the suit, allowing me to not pay alimony until my legal fees and any judgement is recovered. (YAY!)
In answering the civil action my attorneys have filed my Answer along with New Matter, Counterclaim, and Cross-Claim. Each part includes JURY TRIAL DEMANDED.
Is this just “strategy”? I’ve seen the Answer submitted by my ex’s attorney. It is much shorter and never mentions a jury. Sure, I could ask my lawyers, but I’m still trying to economize, and their time is money.
(Case is in PA, you are not my lawyer, estopel, doctrine of laches,etc)
I believe either party can demand a juried trial in any case - even traffic court - but that it is common to waive that right in favor of having a judge hear the facts and make a decision. It’s typically for cases that need to move quickly or turn on technical points of law and in which both sides agree that one expert arbitrator is better than 6 or 12 amateurs.
in your case, I’d read the insistence on a jury trial as “we’re going to make this as long, difficult and expensive for you as we can, using any method at hand.” A typical divorce or family law case, in other words.
I understand that you’re just curious and that you’re not seeking any kind of information that would affect your legal decisions, but I’m guessing you won’t get a lawyer to chime in because it is highly frowned upon to communicate with someone else’s client about an active case, even as to trivial details. (In fact, you shouldn’t be posting about it online!)
It’s a 30-second phone call to your attorney to find out the answer. That’s only, what, $30?
Not typically in traffic court, or necessarily even for minor misdemeanors (depending on jurisdiction). I agree, in the case of the OP, his lawyer is trying to make it more difficult and expensive. The civil defense attorneys do the same around here (Washington State). Also, they believe they have done a good job of polluting the jury pool over the last several decades and that the average juror is very suspicious of anyone claiming to have been hurt by the actions of another. Most plaintiff attorneys here would prefer a judge just deciding, but defendants want a jury. (then they complain about “runaway juries” if they get hit hard).
As you should be. If nothing else, a jury trial might be more expensive for you, so you should know why you’re taking that course. It is exactly the kind of thing to be discussing with your lawyer.
That said, I don’t think I’m overstepping my bounds to point out that lots of times the things said in pleadings are about preserving options later on, and not necessarily reflective of a definitive strategy. It is often the case that if you don’t preserve some option, you waive the ability to exercise it later. Moreover, not everyone has the same rights and obligations to be preserved. It depends on which side of the issues you’re on.
So I wouldn’t take too seriously lay opinion about what this means. If I were you, I’d add this to a checklist of little questions, and next time you meet with your lawyer you can just shotgun off several of them and probably not even increase the bill at all.
However, in reality my legal bills are being recouped via alimony I would otherwise have to pay. I have 4 years of alimony remaining, so even if my current legal fees quadruple plus I have to pay the plaintiff every cent they want, I’ll still break even (I’ve done the math). Which feels weird…
Will do. My divorce attorney referred me to this firm, and we have not met face-to-face yet. Lots of phone and email!
When I worked for a Japanese company, we had to sue a US manufacturer. I was the point man for talking to the attorneys.
I was very conscious about attorney fees as well. We were billed in six minute intervals, (as in tenths of an hour) and I would watch the clock on the answers.
I got pretty good at learning how to word my question to get the shortest, but still satisfactory answer. For example, rather than open-ended questions (borrowing your question) “Why are you requesting a jury trial?” I’d ask “Are you asking for a jury trial for a strategic reason or is this just standard practice?”
I found that this really speeded up the answers by prompting a quick response. It also let the attorneys know that I wasn’t doubting or questioning their strategy, and they would be OK with brief answers.
Washington’s kangaroo traffic court system is very unusual, though. It is among only a handful of states that have “decriminalized” traffic offenses so you have no right to a jury, or to confront witnesses (the cop fills in a Mad Libs form instead of appearing) and none of that “beyond a reasonable doubt” stuff. In the vast majority of states, you still have all the rights of any normal criminal trial, including the right to a jury, although they usually encourage you to take the regular bench trial (judge only) by making the court costs higher for a jury trial.
IF you wish a Jury Trial you MUST state it on your pleading, at least in Ohio.
RULE 38. Jury Trial of Right
(B) Demand. Any party may demand a trial by jury on any issue triable of right by a jury by serving upon the other parties a demand therefor at any time after the commencement of the action and not later than fourteen days after the service of the last pleading directed to such issue. Such demand shall be in writing and may be indorsed upon a pleading of the party. If the demand is indorsed upon a pleading the caption of the pleading shall state “jury demand endorsed hereon.”
The strategy is to try to force the other party to settle without the cost/stress of a Jury trial.
If one party is not equipped to do so, it may force a hand.
We demand juries because judges are political appointees with strong political opinions that they actually get to exercise when deciding who is telling the truth and what caused events to happen and how much it costs to fix the damage, if any. Juries, take their duties of listening and not grinding axes more seriously. Do you want someone like Justice Scalia or on the other side of the coin, Justice Breyer, deciding every issue in your case?
I was on a jury at a civil trial where a woman was suing BART for injuries. They had made an offer which she rejected. This is just my impression, but her attorney asked no questions of any juror, and they settled about five minutes after we were empaneled. When we came back the next morning we were immediately dismissed. I think she was looking for a jury which would be sympathetic to her (against the advice of our attorney) did not get one, and then agreed to settle.
So, is it possible that she thinks she will have a sympathetic story and get more from a jury?
I understand about attorneys not talking about a case. I understand about potential jurors not researching the case. But is there a reason for a party to the suit to not talk about it except for the possibility of that person saying something stupid? (Like insulting the other party.)
ETA: There are lots of reasons. Defamation, potential inconsistent statements, discussing otherwise inadmissible matters, the list is probably pages long.
Virtually everything your opponent says anywhere is admissible evidence, and you never know when a statement that seems innocuous now will be critical in the future. You don’t talk about the case if you’re a party for the same reason you don’t talk to the cops if you’re a suspect even if you are innocent. You have little or nothing to gain, and even a harmless statement could be used by them to prove something that isn’t harmless.
I will not list them, for obvious reasons, but I can imagine a few plausible twists or turns in this case that would make even the comments already made in this thread relevant.
What are the odds that someone goes through the effort and multiple subpoenas to get to someone’s anonymish online persona? Low, I would guess (though messy divorces have got to raise the odds). But the cost/benefit analysis is pretty easy to do. You have little to gain and a lot to lose.
First time I’ve seen my ex & “works” mentioned in the same breath.