Juries Use Awards to Make Bold Statements

Mark Twain once wrote of the American jury system that its efficiency is only marred by the difficulty of finding 12 everyday men who don't know anything and can't read.

Twain's dry humor may have been funny a century ago, but his take on the American justice system today just isn't as humorous.

Times certainly have changed. In England, where the jury system is rooted, the voir dire consisted of men who actually knew something about the event at trial. But as the world expanded and news could not travel as fast, finding a jury of those who had first- or even second-hand knowledge of the events at trial became impossible.

Today, that has evolved to extensive questioning of potential jurors to ascertain their knowledge of awareness of the events at issue, or, at the least, to find those who can swear that they will form an opinion based upon the facts and the law.

But at some trials, jurors became so enraged at the facts that they feel they must send a message through their verdict for all the world to sit up and take note. In the criminal case against automobile magnate John DeLorean, some jurors interviewed after the surprising not-guilty verdict said they actually intended to send a message to the government that it had overstepped its bounds in entrapping him in its drug case.

Jurors now appear to be taking on a similar task in civil cases, as well. Take the $3.5 billion punitive damages award in a Louisiana railway fire class-action lawsuit decided late last year. One of the jurors interviewed afterward said that the reason for the award was that the company seemed unconcerned.

In that case, a tank car leaking toxic chemicals caught fire after it had been moved from the French Quarter to an underprivileged neighborhood. No one was killed, but some of the 8,000 residents suffered personal injury, property damage and inconvenience. The jury apparently felt compelled to make a bold statement through awarding the largest punitive damages amount ever returned in a contested personal injury case anywhere.

More and more juries are making such statements through their civil awards, often using the jury box as a soap box to make a public statement on the issues that impact those beyond the courtroom. The difference in outcome in the O.J. Simpson civil and criminal trials had as much to do with the function of the jury as it did with the differing standards of proof.

The jury is meant to represent the community as a whole; and when these people feel such outrage, they should be allowed to speak in this way on behalf of the public. Bear in mind that a relatively small percentage of cases even make it to verdict on the civil docket.

The late Warren Burger, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, on the other hand, said that although he supported trial by jury in criminal cases, he favored eliminating it in civil matters.

But the right to a trial by jury is embedded in the American democratic ethos. The Seventh Amendment to the Constitution guarantees a trial by jury in any civil suit exceeding $20. Jurors are taking this assignment very seriously, particularly as more and more civil cases impact those beyond the lawsuit itself.

Assuming that the key actors in a courtroom - from the judge and attorneys, to witnesses and jurors - can and will understand their tasks and set aside their personal prejudices, the American jury system works and works well.

Trial by jury is said to symbolize the importance and respect of individual rights. It is a group of people who apply a measure of equity, fairness and impartiality to the proceedings. This is its political function in society.

But it is also taking on an educational function, as well. It reflects the current attitudes on certain issues confronting Americans - and it sets the standard. Look at the tobacco industry. Would it not be so motivated to settle in the various states if not for the fearful message a jury could send?

Just as Americans today have little tolerance for rapists and drunken drivers, so, too, they are demonstrating a growing intolerance for aircraft manufacturers and operators when a plane crashes, particularly when it is due to some foreseeable problem that was correctable but went ignored.

It is these attitudes - the attitudes of the American people - that should be honored when jurors reflect their sentiments through a verdict. Or perhaps even through their mere presence in a courtroom.