A friend of mine just got off jury duty and was telling me how very surprised he was at the outcome and the obvious racial prejudice in the case from some of his fellow jurors.
Case overview. On a busy TN interstate traffic had come to a halt and a white lady who had stopped in the bumper to bumper traffic was rear ended by a black lady. Both cars were totaled and the white lady was taken to the emergency room with severe back and neck injuries. The result was reported by several doctors who examined her. She had a 60k a year job that she could no longer do and she was in daily pain and discomfort. All this was covered in the trial.
The issue was that at least of eight people in the twelve person jury were black and most of them claimed in the jury room that
it really wasn’t the black ladies fault even though she rear ended the white lady
the evidence {several doctors testimony} that the car accident caused her injuries was insufficient.
If it wasn’t for one black man who fought for the white lady she would have received nothing in damages. As it was several jury members voted she receive nothing and averaged with what the others said she was awarded $10,000 which didn’t even cover her $13,000 in medical expenses and did nothing to approach lost work or future lost income.
I asked him if he felt it was a case of “Black people have been screwed so much it’s only fair we screw the white person this time” and he said Uh Huh! That’s exactly what it felt like.
So what the hell?? I’m not surprised to find out out some racism exists among blacks who feel they’ve been screwed repeatedly. It’s fucking true, they have.
Still, it is 2007. How long do we have to make up for past injustices by heaping injustices on evil white folks. Does the injustice dealt to this lady who will be in pain for the rest of her life somehow balance the scales or do people of any color, race, or religion have to stand up for justice regardless of race for mankind to progress?
Question: how is anyone hit hard enough to total both cars, if rear-ended in bumper to bumper traffic? That doesn’t add up–was the black lady’s car a Hummer and the white lady’s car a Mini-Cooper?
I can’t really comment on the “reverse racism”. I have no idea how bitter I’d be if I were black and had suffered mightily throughout my life etc. Then again, revenge for past hurts, real and imagined is a downward spiral of futility and pain, so, no, I don’t approve of such behavior on anyone’s part. My parents live in Memphis and they are both shocked by the racism they see everyday (my Dad teaches at UT-they are not natives). My mother says it’s like she’s back in the 1950s sometimes, but they are referring to white on black racism.
It’s nice to hear that the black man on the jury stood up for the victim.
If the offending driver is speeding toward heavy traffic and fails to brake, hitting the stopped car in front, then yes, that could well total both cars and cause serious injury.
So the scenario may be that there is a slowdown/stoppage ahead, and the rear driver doesn’t brake in time? I had pictured it differently, but this makes sense. Thanks.
If only racism were alive an well only in Tennessee. After a nasty encounter with it here on the Sacred Red Clay of Georgia I posted this thread, rather poorly in the heat of anger.
I think we’ve made up our minds that cultural hatred is stupid, so we dismiss it with all the other stupid things on earth like last decade’s “what were we thinking?” haircuts. But then we don’t respect how strong an impulse it is, at our own peril.
I remember a letter from my old, frail aunt Margaret, that had an ending to a story of our family history with the words “That’s why we hate the English and we always will!” Something so bad was done that time cannot lessen its awfulness, so that hatred will flow through the blood of generations so long as those generations can be called Irish (Black, Jewish, Cherokee, etc.)
Why didn’t your friend hold out for a reasonable amount of money and try reasoning with them? He didn’t have to give in. Didn’t all twelve have to agree?
This is an outrage!
Was there anything specifically racial said in the deliberations? If so, there was no justice.
This sounds like a civil case, and the standards are lower for civil cases.
First, the evidence has to be “clear & compelling” rather than the tougher “beyond a reasonable doubt” of a criminal case.
And, depending on the state, you don’t need a unaniminous verdict of all 12 jurors. (Many states don’t even have 12 jurors on civil cases, often just 6 or 8.) And many states allow a civil case jury to decide with a majority verdict, or by some specified number of jurors.
(In Tennessee, it seems that they do have 12 jurors, but the parties can agree before the case to accept a smaller jury, or to accept a majority verdict. Also, if a juror gets sick or indisposed, they can agree to accept a verdict from the remaining members on the jury.)
Of course this is unfair and shameful, and unfortunate for that particular woman, but as long as we are forced to live in a world with bias and prejudice abundant in the legal system, it would be horrible if it was always a case of a majority jury screwing a minority, and never the other way around.
I’m not sure how it all works but it wasn’t an all or nothing deal. They had specific figures on what her medical expenses were, how much work she had missed, the fact that she couldn’t work anymore,and what her potential income would be if she stayed at that job until she retired. All that totaled about $2,000,000. Her lawyer didn’t ask for that much or any specific amount, {I don’t know why} What it came down to and perhaps what they agreed to was that they would all write down an amount they thought was fair and divide it by twelve to determine damages. Even after discussion too many wrote down 0, so the the average was $10,000.
What surprised him was how many people said, the black lady wasn’t at fault just because she rear ended her at high speed. Even though the white lady was able to stop safely. They also refused to acknowledge that a high speed rear end collision that sends you to the emergency room and several doctors testimony about the permanent debilitating nature of her injuries were caused by the accident.
There was nothing specifically racial said. It just seemed very obvious to him by the unreasonable nature of their positions that it was specifically a race issue. They wanted to side with the black lady driver against the white lady.
I’d be interested to know if her lawyer planned an appeal.
Things like this are going to happen on a daily basis when you have 12 average morons trying to sort out the complexities of the legal system in a trial.
My opinion on these things is that the jury hears actual evidence, sometimes for days, and makes a decision. Then someone comes in here with a lot of hearsay, tells an anecdote, and other people decide that based on that, the jury made the wrong decision. It’s as regular as the tides, if not as interesting. We should have a “The jury fucked up!” sticky.
The people who said the black woman wasn’t at fault are probably just like the dopers who have argued here that there’s no real need to keep a safe following distance in traffic and that they can stop in time if they really have to. I’m sure vast swaths of the driving masses believe that if 1) their tailgating will never catch up to them and 2) if they should rear-end someone, it’ll be that person’s fault.
My hearsay was from one of the jurors directly, and granted it’s just an opinion.
So you think it’s probably mere coincidence or a misunderstanding of ample evidence that it was the black jurors who thought the injured white lady should get $0.
There was a garden club back in the 1950’s in a Irish neighborhood that had 48 Irish members. When Mrs. Greenburg and Schwartz moved to town, after some resistance, they were allowed to join the club, and the next year Mrs. Greenburg nominated Mrs. Schwartz for club president. When she lost, by 48 to 2, Mrs. O’Brien congratulated the winner, but Observed, “Isn’t it terrible the way the Jews stick together.”
So, assuming your friend told you the story the way it actually happened, and you told it to us that way as well, what we know is that there was a jury on which 87.5% of the blacks voted one way, and 100% of the whites voted the other, and you are concerned about black racism.
I think you’re misunderstanding. There is a situation in which 41.67% of the jurors voted with the evidence, and 58.33% voted against. Only the latter group requires explanation, as only it has behaved contrary to logic. Anecdotal evidence explains the 58.33% as racism. The fact that the whites weren’t being racist in this case doesn’t actually say anything about their racism, or lack thereof. All is says is that 8.33% of the jurors are evidently not racist (or can overcome their racism in order to perform jury duty), and 58.33% seem to be racist. Totals:
58.33% racist
41.67% did not state / undecided
8.33% not racist
I would agree that there is a lot of reason to be concerned about white racism against blacks, but this anecdote doesn’t supply any. I can see my math is somewhat off but no time to edit properly. I think the point is clear, anyhow.
You don’t know what the evidence was, and I don’t know what the evidence was, and Cosmodan doesn’t know what the evidence was. As I initially posted, The jury heard testimony and made a decision. You, based on a third hand anecdote of doubtful provenance have decided what the facts in this case are.
