the practice

I remember when "The Practice" was one of my favorite shows on TV years ago. It made the world of law and our judicial system seem dangerous and exciting. "Ally McBeal" helped and made it funny. And then David E. Kelley got a little carried away in his writing, and it became less and less believable... I stopped watching when Bobby Donnell left, I think. It's been a while since I've seen the show, but I think I watched the one episode when all the old cast came back for a bit... Anyway, I distinctly remember one of the earlier episodes, when Jimmy is nervous about going to court with one of his cases because he lacked self-confidence.

I actually had to serve on a jury this week, which was an interesting experience. Of course, we had a handful of people actively try really hard to get out of it (and did), and then there were the rest of us, who were resigned to our fate... There was this sense of "we're all in it together," and I was lucky enough to get to serve at the beach, so it was generally a pretty pleasant experience, minus the time actually spent in court. Our judicial system is such that in order to establish evidence in court, lawyers have to present it very specifically, and there are all these rules and procedures that just make a boring case even more so. And the lawyers all spoke in this low monotone that was hard to hear. The plaintiff and his witnesses needed better writers. One thing I noticed was that the judge acted almost exactly like the judges on The Practice, to an extent. And the court reporter was really cool. I don't understand how anyone can stand just sitting and typing out what happens in these courtrooms, but I just want to learn how to type on one of those shorthand keyboards now...

It was really just interesting people-watching inside the courtroom and seeing how everyone was reacting. The relative intelligence of the witnesses made for interesting examinations by the lawyers, who were either struggling to make them understand the question, or struggling to make them give the answer they wanted.

The defense lawyer was clearly better than the plaintiff's lawyer. He seemed to have a better grasp of where he was going with his questions, which resulted in us (the jurors) having an easier time following him. By the end of the trial, I think most of us were really annoyed by the plaintiff's attorney. He kept asking the same questions over and over, dragging things out unnecessarily, and kept trying to emphasize certain things that didn't really pertain to the case with unsympathetic witnesses. Of all the witnesses he called, I think the only one we found credible as a person was the one who worked for the defense. And even he wasn't really a credible witness, because he stated on the stand that he really didn't remember the events from over two years ago.

The counsel for the plaintiff basically reminded me of Jimmy, from all those years ago on the Practice. Except that he seemed to be an ambulance chaser trying to get a jury to give his client (and him) hundreds of thousands of dollars or more. Jimmy, at least, really wanted to settle so he wouldn't need to go to court. I remember that. But this guy, at first, I felt bad for him because he was getting so clearly outplayed by the defense. But then, I realized that he was bringing a case against a public entity, who would have tried to settle as soon as possible to cover up the incident and get it over with. He must have had a number of times to settle, but advised his client not to take it. I just don't understand how he could really think that he could win with the case he brought us and the demeanor with which he brought it. It was like, yeah, we get it. She couldn't play with her kids anymore, and it's really sad. We don't need to hear it again and again.

He seriously reminded me of my sixth grade self, on defense of Sparta against Athens (with a clearly guilty client, although I guess it wasn't as clear in this case...), bumbling around our classroom courtroom because none of us really knew how the court system worked. Except that we were in elementary school. We weren't supposed to know how the court system worked. That was the point of the exercise. He's supposed to be a lawyer. This is his livelihood. It's not a farce in the classroom, what he does affects real people's lives. His client could probably sue him and win. But the sad thing is, she won't. Because she was and is a single mother with four kids living in Compton on public assistance who was looking to get more money out of this case than she would ever make in her entire life.

She's the victim here, but there wasn't anything we could do to help her. None of us were willing to give her more than a percentage of her medical bills based on what we were presented, so whatever would have been paid her would have gone straight to her lawyer and doctor (who testified for her case and wasn't paid for his care of her).

I find it a little ridiculous we spent as much time on the case as we did. It didn't need to take that long, but because of all the rules and regulations of the court, we needed to take almost an entire day just to select the jury, then allow the lawyers to use their lawyerly ways of manipulating words and questions to squeeze what they want out of the witnesses without causing too many objections and pissing off the judge (which the plaintiff counsel did at least once).

I now understand all the things they say about lawyers twisting words, and about how appearance and charisma can help decide the case. I know why Jimmy didn't want to go to trial, because I would probably have found against him, too. I remember him talking to Bobby about how the eye contact of the jurors could predict their votes. It was so true. I seriously couldn't look at the plaintiff attorney during his closing statements. Everything he said just sounded so slimey and annoying, and I felt like I'd already been hit over the head with it during the witness testimonies. He was downright mean to one of the defense witnesses, and even if it was allowed by the court, I think most of us jurors just thought he was wasting his time asking the same questions over and over again. He didn't convince me then, and he wasn't going to convince me when it was just him talking. He sounded desperate, like he was grasping at straws to get anything and everything he could out of the time he could talk to us. I just couldn't look at him. I thought I would have the same problem with the defense attorney, but I didn't. He just made more sense, and seemed to be nicer about the whole thing in general. I guess he had less at stake, since he was going to get paid either way the case was decided...

And then, at the end, of course the plaintiff wanted to poll the jury. I was fine, because I had voted with the majority of the jurors for the defense. But the poor people who voted in favor of the plaintiff at the end had to be subjected to more of the lawyer trying to figure out what happened, etc. etc. I just got out of there as fast as I could.

Man, that's kind of a depressing summary of my experience of our judicial system. It really wasn't that bad. Most of it was boring, and members of the jury kept falling asleep, but we would snicker and laugh during the trial, and talk about who was falling asleep during the recesses as we were outside enjoying the ocean breeze.

I think the best parts of the trial were when the plaintiff's attorney was trying to use a laser pointer to get the plaintiff to indicate where she was walking on a picture up on the screen and later, when he cross-examined the defense's expert witness. "Were you going in the direction of the red laser beam?" That was on the first day, when we were still trying to think the best of him... And then on the third day:

(Plaintiff) Counsel: Doctor, was she wearing the gauntlet when she went in to see you?
(Defense) Dr: Gauntlet?
Counsel: (stutters and motions to his wrist) Y-yes... a gauntlet...?
Dr: Oh, you mean a splint?
Jury bursts out laughing.
Dr: (laughing) Yeah, I guess they kind of look like those things knights used to wear with their armor.
More laughter.

This was with the doctor we believed, as opposed to the one who was nicknamed "Shifty" in the jury deliberation room (who went along with the lawyer when asked a similar question and called it a gauntlet). I think our laughing was disturbing the court in session next to us, but at least we were having fun while we could.