From my perspective, and due to these three cases just mentioned, I vowed that if I ever served on a jury I would study every bit of testimony and evidence closely. What was presented and what was not presented that should have been presented equally. I would study the lawyers and the judge very closely. And I would smell a rat if any jury I was on was kept in the jury room for excessive periods of time during the trial.
Later in the Jim Teddy wrongful death case jury selection the Defense attorneys began asking the jury what I thought were leading questions, such as “can you be fair to both sides in this case?” Followed by Just because a person is dealt a bad hand in life, do you automatically think that justifies the finding of malpractice against the Doctor? My immediate thought was, no, that does not necessarily mean the Doctor was guilty of malpractice, but under the circumstances of this case it is surely a “red flag.” to be examined closely when the evidence of the case is presented. I later expressed this thought in a question to the Defense Attorney by asking “if we are to be fair to both sides, doesn’t that mean we have to start with the thought that the Doctor was “maybe” guilty of malpractice and just as equally the doctor was “maybe” NOT guilty of malpractice.
And that we have to hear the evidence to decide which “maybe” applied using the greater weight of the evidence?
Of course the Defense Attorney agreed with my statement but I knew that I had just put both sets of attorneys on notice that, for my part, I would closely examine the evidence and testimony, listen to the judge describe how the law applied to the case and make my judgement accordingly. And I would work to convince the other jurors to do the same thing. I knew this was exactly what a “fair trial” was all about.
I have also learned over the years that lawyers are not necessarily interested in “fair” trials. In this case, the Teddy family attorneys want to win a multimillion dollar award for their clients. In this case the Doctor’s lawyers probably represent not only the Doctor, but the Doctor’s insurance company who surely do NOT want to pay out millions of dollars of their company’s money.
So, I had put both sets of lawyers to the test of which side actually wanted a “fair” juror from a member of the public, well known for digging deep into the numerous attributes of the matter, finding the facts, applying the law and reaching a verdict that could be and would be defended. Or did one side or the other have something to hide in the case that they did not want “due diligence” to find? Was this all about money?
In my case, the Teddy family, in the end, had no objections to me serving on the jury. The Doctor’s lawyers, on the other hand, did have an objection to me serving on the jury and removed me without providing a reason to the court. I have to conclude from this that the Doctor’s attorneys know they have a weaker case that will be discovered if examined closely.
Personally I have to thank the Doctor’s attorneys for setting me free from a full month of sitting in that cramped jury box listening to boring testimony and reading tedious medical reports. Now I can go to the beach or the mountains carefree. But, I am still interested in colonoscopic examinations for my own sake. Especially now that I know that the risks of colon cancer are so high and I am at the age of maximum risk. I have to also determine if the push to have these colonoscopic Examinations are more of a money maker for doctors or, if colon cancers will get me whether or not I go through the screenings. And, what better place to get the pros and cons of colonoscopic examinations than listening to the experts that will be testifying in this case.
This trial is open to the public and free of charge to those that care to attend. I plan of doing some court watching on this case myself and doing some reporting on the progress. I would suggest that anyone over 50 pay attention to what happens in this trial. Colon Cancer is a major killer; the Number 2 killer according to the Doctor’s own website information.
Just like I always say around election time, citizens, get yourself informed and vote on Election Day. In this colon cancer matter, I say get yourself informed about colon cancer and live as long as you can. And, do not shirk jury duty.
Stay tuned. The verdict will be returned in about a month. Whether or not the selected jury would have reached the same verdict as I would have reached remains to be seen. I am officially OFF the jury in the Jim Teddy case and officially dismissed from the entire jury pool during this Superior Court session. Now I am back to just being a concerned citizen who has the right to attend this trial and voice my opinion. Perhaps that was to be my purpose to begin with. I suspect I will not see any Shelby Star reporters attending during this month long trial.
