How many of you have been through this jury selection process before today
Questions about “you” that means you of course but also husb or wife or child parent brother or sister too. Any one close to you so what happened would be a part of your personal experiences.
Have you ever been injured as a victim of a crime?
Who has had a traumatic brain injury?
Who has been to a neurologist?
Who has been to a neuropsychologist?
Does anybody have a family member with a brain injury?
Has anybody here ever had a fractured skull?
How many of you have had a job where you were responsible for the safety of other people
How do you feel about personal security?
Do you lock your car when you leave it in a public place? In a shopping center parking lot, at home?
Do you have an alarm or other type of security system at home? Fence, bars on windows?
Do you notice whether there is security when you go to a public place?
Is there security in the place where you work?
Is security part of your job?
Is the security at your job there to protect you?
Do you feel safer where there is adequate security?
Who is a landlord?
Does anyone here own an apartment house?
Is it fair to make property owners provide security for parking lots?
This case is based on a law that says that a landowner is responsible to a victim for crimes committed by unknown parties if what happened meets the criteria the judge will instruct you on at the end of the case. Do you think it’s unfair to make a landowner responsible under any circumstances? Could you follow such a law?
Do you agree with that law do you disagree. Does anyone here think it is wrong to require a landowner to provided security if it is needed?Burden of Proof
It this case we show that it is more likely than not that we are right not wrong. The law requires us to show just by 51% that its more likely than not that we are right. You will be asked to decide the case by making that decision more likely or less likely. Some people feel that’s not fair. They think more should be required than 51%.
Other people are O.K. with making the decisions that way.
Who feels that’s not fair?
Who feels that’s’ O.K.?
Are you closer to O.K. or not fair?
Tell me more about how you feel
The reason I say it is because we all agree, my client and the defendant that’s the law and the judge will instruct you at the end of the trial that simply the greater weight of the evidence is the choice you will make about which side is right and which is not.
On tort reform issues- some people say the law requiring a jury to award damages should have a maximum amount no matter what the facts of the case show. Others feel there should be no maximum and the jury should award the full amount of the harms and losses. Which are you closer to? Limits or no limits on the juries right to set the amount.
Who has an opinion on this subject?
Which of these views are you closer to Mr. Juror X
Do any of you have legal education or training?
Have any of you ever worked for a lawyer?
Have any of you ever worked for an insurance company in claims investigation or adjustment?
Have any of you worked for a doctor / have any medical training
Have any of you ever been sued.
How many of you have sued somebody because you felt it was the only way you could get justice for someone else’s negligence?
Have any of you ever been in a situation where you felt the legal system treated unfairly?
Do you understand every case is different and that what happened in your case had nothing to do with this one?
Who thinks we have a lawsuit crisis?
Who thinks something should be done to limit lawsuits?
What are you closer to? Tell me about it
When jurors are on cases like this one they have to decide how big a verdict or how much money should be awarded. What would you think of when thinking about the size of the verdict?
Mention amount of money in the case if possible
The only things you will be able to consider when deciding the amount of the verdict is the evidence of the losses of my client. Other things like sympathy or what other people may say or think of your verdict cannot be considered. It is only natural to feel sympathetic toward someone who has been hurt. Will you decide the amount of the damages based on the harms and losses only.
This is a head injury case. It is about a brain injury. How do you feel about sitting in such a case. If we prove that there are substantial damages in this case and that we are entitled to recover could you return a substantial verdict? What if it is a large amount. Could you award a substantial amount if the evidence shows there has been brain damage in this case?
Can you decide the harms and losses using the same standards? What is the right amount more likely than not. Is there anyone who disagrees with applying the more likely than not or 51% standard to decide the amount of the damages?