Kentucky Lawyer

Juries usually arrive at correct decision

39 Kentucky Lawyer crowd better than his lawyer, and, as any other star performer in a big show might feel, said, “Joe, let’s let ’um go on and hang me and then you can finish your speech. You’re goin’ t’ lose votes, and I’m gittin’ tard astandin’ here.” Juries usually arrive at correct decision Many times cases take a turn that could not possibly have been anticipated by any of the participants, and yet there is very infrequently a real miscarriage of justice. Occasionally , however, there is a mistake in what issue is to be decided by the jury and for that matter by the judge. Jurors have to be informed by the attorneys and the court on what the issues to be decided are. Nothing can be taken for granted. I have always been of the opinion that if a case was properly presented by both sides, the jury would reach a correct verdict eighty-five percent of the time, and that is about as good a percentage as a judge or group of judges makes. Too frequently poor jury lawyers condemn juries when they themselves, because of lack of ability to present their client’s cause properly, are entirely at fault. I recall a renowned railroad lawyer in one of our Kentucky cities who continually damned and condemned the jury system and juries in particular as being “stupid,” prejudiced against corporations, especially railroads, and wholly incapable of reaching a fair decision on a set of facts. This attorney was a gentleman of the highest ethics and character; he was well trained in the law and prepared his cases carefully but usually had substantial verdicts in 0 Mac Swinford damages returned against his client in tort actions. The reason was not a lack of either intelligence or integrity of the jurors but his own fault. He tried many cases. The first thing he did by inference was to impress the jury with his deep resentment against them and his belief that so stupid and corrupt a lot of people could not be either understanding or honest. He talked down to them from first to last and reaped the consequences of his own vanity and lack of psychological know-how. It is rare but even more reprehensible for an attorney to try to curry favor with the jurors by smirking and smiling at them and by obviously attempting in his own small mind to be just like these “plain good people” who have been put on the case to determine the rights of his client. A competent trial lawyer will treat the jury with respect but with formality as honest men and women who are trying to discharge the high duty to which their government has called them. Many of the so-called “old time lawyers” would have made great Shakespearean actors. They could dramatize a situation in a masterful and compelling way and actually sway juries away from the case and have them trying some collateral issue which had no bearing whatsoever on the controversy. In a western Kentucky town some years ago, a case involving a charge of slander had reached the final arguments . One of the attorneys in his closing argument asked the jury in considering the case to bear in mind the immortal words of Shakespeare: “Who steals my purse steals trash; ’tis something, nothing; ’Twas mine, ’tis his, and has been slave to thousands: But he that filches from me 1 Kentucky Lawyer my good name robs me of that which not enriches him, and makes me poor indeed.” His opponent whose argument followed said that it was apparent that the gentleman who preceded him knew no more about Shakespeare than he did about the case; that it wasn’t Shakespeare who had said that but Jesus Christ. He concluded his speech and the jury retired to consider the case. They remained out for an unreasonable time and finally the judge told the sheriff to bring them before him. When the jury filed in the judge inquired of the foreman what was the trouble and if there were any further instructions they might like for him to give to clarify the issue. The foreman replied that he believed the jury was hopelessly hung; “half of them say Shakespeare and half of them say Christ.” * * * The stubbornness of a single juror is highlighted by the following: On the occasion of a...