Attorney Michael Hall of Hall Law in Minnesota posted a great article about what jurors don't know. You can read the full article here.
Hall notes that in our current legal system, as is the case in Pittsburgh, PA courts, a host of information is often kept secret from jurors. For example:
1. Jurors are almost never told that the defendants have insurance.
2. Jurors are not told that the defendant’s attorney is paid for by the insurance company.
3. Jurors are not told that the defendant’s attorney regularly works on behalf of the defendant’s insurance company and may even be an employee of the insurance company.
4. Jurors are not told that the defendant’s experts are generally paid for by the defendant’s insurance company.
5. Jurors are not told that the defendant’s experts are generally retained by the defendant’s insurance company on a regular basis.
6. Jurors are not told that the defendant’s attorney and the defendant’s expert are often a defense team who regularly work for the insurance company together.
7. Jurors are often not told the consequences of the answers they give on the special verdict form.
8. Jurors are generally not told that the verdict the plaintiff receives will be reduced by 1/3rd in order to pay attorney’s fees.
9. Jurors are not told that the verdict the plaintiff receives will be reduced by the amount plaintiffs must pay in costs, including: court filing fees, copy charges, court reporter fees, expert fees, and subpoena costs.
10. Jurors are not told that the verdict the plaintiff receives will be reduced by any health insurance benefits already received.
For most personal injury cases, I don't think a lot of these items are critical for a juror to make a sound decision. For instance, I don't think a juror needs to know that a portion of the judgment will go to legal fees, court costs, etc. The judgment should be looked at in light of all relevant evidence. To account for the legal fees of Plaintiffs' counsel would be unfair to the Defendant.
I AM astounded by how often I have talked to jurors at the conclusion of a trial only to learn that they had no idea that the defendant was covered by a policy of insurance and the defendant's attorney was provided by the insurance company. I guess as an attorney I am jaded and assume everyone knows that the majority of drivers, homeowners and companies have some form of liability insurance.
Despite this, I do not think jurors should always be told that the Defendant is covered by an insurance policy (even though they are). BUT, there is a tactic employed by savvy defense attorneys that I think calls for juries to be made aware of insurance coverage.
During the course of a trial, defense attorneys will say "This Plaintiff is asking you to order the Defendant to pay her money" or "You are being asked to force this Defendant to pay a lot of money to this Plaintiff." These statements suggest that if a judgment is rendered the defendant will have to dig into their own pocket to pay. This tactic is galling for two reasons:
1. It is a false statement- a manipulation of trial rules- done for the benefit of the Defendant and detriment of the Plaintiff. To the contrary, the Insurance company will cover the judgment. Furthermore, the Defendant (like all of us) has paid for this service through high, long-term premiums.
2. It biases the jury. Instead of considering what the fair damages are, the jury is more worried about bankrupting the defendant. This is a misguided consideration that has no place in a jury trial.
As a result, the rule that was created to keep Defendant's from being prejudiced is now used to prejudice Plaintiffs.
When this tactic is employed by a defense attorney, the jury should be shown the light and instructed that, in fact, any judgment will be paid by the insurance company, not the Defendant. Share this post :
|
|
2 comments: