Service means Citizenship: Part 5 of 6

[jchrisobrien]

Have you ever had a cinematic moment? Did something ever happen to you that was so cool, or so horrible, or so unbelievable that it had to be artificial or scripted? It happened to me on the third day of deliberations. We were arguing all morning about the definition of negligence, and degrees of negligence. The four jurors who thought the doctor was innocent of neglect were firm in their beliefs, based on the evidence at hand. We ten who thought different tried tactic after tactic, but nothing moved them. Everyone was frustrated. No, they were pissed off. There was lots of anger and tension, and it skirted the line between personal hostility and exasperation at being unable to present their thoughts clearly. Finally one juror wanted to list all the details on sheets of paper, and hang them in front of everyone so we could all see and agree on the facts. There was a lot of groaning, it wasn't a popular idea. But she bravely pressed forward, and she got support, and we went at it.

Of the four jurors in the minority, one was the most unwavering in his belief. He was a history professor, and a very smart man. He had a way of looking at the information that was completely different than the rest of us though. There was a gulf separating his train of thought from our own, and no one could bridge it. The biggest point of contention had to do with the pathology reports of the woman after her operation, the women who later died of a heart attack. The pathology reports showed evidence of gall bladder disease. The professor believed that because the reports showed she had gall bladder disease, the doctor was right in operating on her. We disagreed, saying that you couldn't use knowledge of future events to determine if a present action was right or not. All you could do was take a guess, and hope that you were right. But he insisted you could, since WE were in possession of all this information, WE had to use it. As I said, a total impasse.

I talked with one of the four dissenting jurors, a retired roofer. He wanted to take a straw poll about the second question we were to deliberate (question 1 was "Is the doctor guilty of negligence", and question 2 was "did the negligence lead to the patient's death?") He reasoned that if he knew people thought the doctor was innocent of her death, he'd be more likely to conclude that he was negligent. I said I'd bring the poll idea up to the group. The group didn't like the idea, it seemed morally bankrupt, a sort of plea bargaining. The professor added in, "You can't use the answer of question 2, to help decide the answer of question 1."

Lightning struck me. I damn near fell out of my chair when I heard him say that. I raised my hand and got in the queue to talk.

I repeated the professor's statement, and then followed it up. "So if you can't use the answer for question 2, to influence your answer on question 1, doesn't that mean you can't use the evidence of the pathology report to base your decision on whether he should have operated or not?"

A half dozen light bulbs exploded above the heads of several jurors. You could see the wheels spinning behind their eyes. They shifted in their seats. The professor was baffled. We talked about the point, and while he in the end say a parallel with what I said, he stood his earlier decision. I made one last, tired, passionate speech about my position, and then we called the first question to a vote.

The vote was 12-2 that he was negligent. We had broken the dead lock.

As I left the building that day, one of the jurors who was in the not negligent camp, one of the ones who changed his vote, approached me in the garage. He put a hand on my shoulder and said "Congratulations, Silas. You broke the dead lock." I managed to get out a thank you, and then drove home.

And THAT is the reason I was so fucking proud on that day, almost three weeks ago. So now you know.

Comments

[alonewiththemoon]

yay you!

Seriously, that was a good thing.

[c-m-i.livejournal.com]

When I had jury duty, the lawyers somehow let a nurse who had experience with the device (retractors) in question on. If she wasn't there, I think we would have found for the plaintiff.

-ia.

[silas7.livejournal.com]

Several our the jurors thought that because we weren't doctors, we didn't have the right to comment on their ability. Which is silly, because that's why we were there.

In one sense, our legal system is very scary becuase any yahoo could be deciding your fate. The fact that there are 12 yahoos, and that you just have to make your decision on the evidence presented, helps ease those fears.

[lizerk.livejournal.com]

WOW!!!!! Congratulations!

I always knew you were brilliant.

[silas7.livejournal.com]

Sometimes I even believe that. ;)
*trying to keep my ego in check*

Finally :)

[sanguineempathy.livejournal.com]

Kudos, Congrats, Back patting all around !! You rock :)

Re: Finally :)

[silas7.livejournal.com]

Thank you!