Modicum of Justice

The court case I was on for five weeks as a juror is finally over. I'm allowed to talk about it, but the case is still so sensitive to the parties involved that I will refrain from giving a lot of details. Rather, I'll just highlight some of the key events.

At the beginning there were five defendants and four lawyers, not counting the plaintiff and his lawyer; but after a couple days two of the parties settled out of court, leaving three defendants with two lawyers (one of the lawyers represented two individuals). I immediately recognized the case as one I had read about in the newspaper, and thought this would disqualify me from serving. However, since it was straight reportage instead of an editorial, I was allowed to remain.

It was a construction defect case that pitted the developer's contractor versus the subcontractors (framers and siders). It involved high-end townhomes way up in the hills that had been plagued with water intrusion problems (both flooding and mildew). We were able to take a field trip to the scene on a chartered tour bus, and that was perhaps the most fun of the entire trial. It rained that morning for the first time in weeks though (figures), and just one walk on the grass around one of the buildings caused me to get soaked all the way through my socks.

The whole area was a water magnet, and it doesn't surprise me that there were moisture issues on the property. However, there were adjacent lots (one of which was originally part of the same project) that, at least outwardly, didn't seem to share the same hazards. One problem was that the buildings in question were built on a slope with the worst damage towards the bottom. After this excursion, we had lunch, and still had a full afternoon of testimony to listen to.

On one of the subsequent mornings an expert for the plaintiff answered questions on the stand, and then after a break, was dressed down to his construction clothes. He proceeded to install a window into a frame right there in the courtroom! First he installed it the way it was done on the site and then he built another display showing how he believed it should be done. He got back on the witness stand and answered more questions, including a blistering cross-examination that made him out to be an idiot, though earlier he had appeared completely credible.

Similar situations occurred with the defense witnesses, where the plaintiff's lawyer would annihilate seemingly reasonable testimony. It was left to us to decide who to believe and, in my opinion, it's one of the flaws of the system that no independent experts testified, only those chosen by the lawyers representing their clients. There were several long afternoons of PowerPoint demonstrations conducted by both sides, involving photographs of the alleged damage. More displays were produced and 4 binders were filled with the salient points (mostly contracts and photographs), eventually reaching an astronomical 378 exhibits.

There were some amusing moments, such as when the plaintiff's lawyer was unable to locate a photograph among the 200 or so in evidence. One of the opposing lawyers was grinning (as were we), but he was in the same position a little later when he futilely searched for a document among the mountains of papers in front of him. Also, the plaintiff's lawyer objected one morning to one of the defense assistants cross-examining a witness, because she happened to be wearing nearly the exact same outfit as her; they made quite a pair sitting next to each other at the lawyers' table (objection overruled). And, during one of the slide shows, a laptop cord accidentally knocked over a cup of water and the lawyers were sent scrambling for paper towels. "Water intrusion!" one of them exclaimed.

I made 77 pages of notes, completely filling a provided notebook, while some fellow jurors had 2 or 3 notebooks full (these were helpful during deliberations). There were many interruptions (several a day) where one of the lawyers would insist on approaching the bench, and occasionally they had to retire to the judge's chambers. I tried to keep track of how many times each event occurred, but lost count after awhile. We were getting quite used to all of this when the defense unexpectedly rested one day after a break, when a particular photograph wasn't allowed into evidence because of insufficient documentation.

The closing arguments were quite dramatic, with one the defense lawyers actually throwing things around (bolts and small window frames) to illustrate the waste that would ensue if all the work had to be redone at the site. It took us a day and a half to reach our verdict, and we believe an equitable solution was reached, though nobody got everything they wanted. I feel sorry for the homeowners who still have to muddle through 18 months of reconstruction.

I learned a lot and know more about the construction business than I ever thought I wanted to, not to mention the remarkable opportunity to study the courts first hand. It's an experience I wouldn't trade for anything in the world, though I hope to never have to repeat it. I'm sure everyone involved in the case would agree.