Ask the Jury for a Socially Conscious Verdict in Closing Arguments
I’m looking at the notes in my computer and I still have a lot of notes from conventions from the summer, fall and winter of 2005 and we’re fast moving into the Spring of 2006. I know that the world of blogs likes to be as up to the minute as possible, but I’ll turn the notes into blog posts if it’s good and useful info even if it’s a little late. Here’s a tip from Pete Law, from Southern Trial Lawyer’s Association Fall Retreat.
Peter asks the jury for a ‘socially conscious’ verdict, or in other words a reasonable verdict. He tells the jury what he’s going to prove and asks for a socially conscious verdict that meets with community standards. Saying “We don’t want a reckless award, it’s not good for him, it’s not good for us, it’s not good for the civil system and it’s not good for the community. We do want a fair award. That’s the number you should give. Don’t give more, don’t give less.”
And then you have to justify the number you asked for. But let the jury know that you don’t want a crazy number, just a socially conscious verdict.
Good tip. Thanks for the advice Peter.
Great post David. It is especially important for young trial lawyers to learn this. You never want to over reach in asking for a verdict.
I appreciate the point. Asking for ridiculous sums of money with a foundation is not productive. I think it is all a question of context. The problem is that our job is to get as much money for our clients as possible, not a "just" verdict. In order to accomplish this, we have to ask the jury to do something rather odd: put a monetary value on pain. I think you have to reach high and give a logical foundation to the jury for that high reach. My partner tried a slip and fall in a blizzard case earlier this year with 6K in meds and a fractured wrist that pretty much resolved. The offer was 18; the demand was 30. The jury awarded 370. We never could have gotten that outcome if we had not reached high and presented a reasonable basis for doing so.
One of the biggest problems in getting favorable jury verdicts is the concern of what the juror's neighbors will think. Juror's fear they will be laughed at by their friends and family for awarding signifant damages without a death or lost limb. So I have concerns about referencing the larger social context. Typically, I'm indirectly saying: forget the larger social context, do what is right here.
It is not uncommon that we give a logical basis for a verdict, the defense does the same, and the jury comes down somewhere in the middle.
My last point: I think it is arguably insulting to the jury to tell them that recklessly high verdict does not help the plaintiff. Let's be honest: of course it does. Again, the hardest part about trying a case is asking for money -putting a dollar sign on the intangible of human suffering. You don't want to lose credibility with them on this issue by saying something that is simply not true. Instead I think the play is to tell them what you think the case is worth, reminding them of the truth: that it is just your suggestion and they can do whatever it is that they want to do.
Ron Miller
www.millerandzois.com
Ron,
Congratulations on the verdict. That's an amazing verdict with the facts you mentioned. Your verdict is *about* four times our county average for wrongful death cases.
I think a lot of the approach on how to talk to the jury about damages and placing it in the larger social context is the venue and how you approach damages in the resot of your closing argument.
I don't think that it's insulting to tell the jury that a reckless award is not good for the plaintiff. He's not looking for charity, he's not looking for a hand out, he's not looking for pity. He's just looking to be put back in the same position as he was before negligence.
The plaintiff should be made whole. Not enriched. Again, I think it depends on the approach you take in the rest of the closing argument. Thanks for the thoughts.
