The two lawyers
completed their closing statements, the judge gave us our instructions and then
it was up to us, the jury, to make a decision. For any of you who have been on
a jury, it can be an interesting, boring and difficult job all rolled into one.
As a mystery writer, I always want to be called to be on a jury, but because I
want to do it, I’m never called. My wife recently received a letter indicating
she needed to contact the county courthouse after five p.m. on a Friday to see
if she would need to show up the following Monday to be a potential jurist. She
did not want to do it, whereas I would have coveted the opportunity. When she
didn’t have to go, she was relieved.
So to overcome my
jury envy, I signed up to be a jurist in a mock trial. A friend of mine had
signed up to serve on a mock jury and told me about it. I called and got the
last slot. Under the wire. The organization putting on the mock trial was the National Institute
for Trial Advocacy (NITA) located right here in Boulder, Colorado. It’s an organization
that trains lawyers, and one of the training programs is to put on mock trials.
When I showed up and
after being plied with sweet rolls and fruit, I was assigned to a room for the
trial. Two teams of two lawyers each represented the plaintiff and defendant in
a civil litigation case over a contract dispute. One company had accused
another of violating a contract clause on exclusivity of technology. The defendant
claimed that the exclusivity only applied to improvements to the original
product and not a new product. So one item of dispute was whether the follow on
product was an improvement or a completely new product. Then a second issue was
over a right of first refusal. The company providing the technology had to
provide the other company an opportunity to meet or exceed any offer made for a
new technology. The technology provider contracted with another company,
notified the licensing company, that company responded, but there was a dispute
over whether this response met the offer or was a counter offer.
All this may sound
boring, but since I negotiated contracts in the high tech world for a number of
years before I retired to write mystery novels, I found the debate interesting.
The lawyers presented their cases and called witnesses. The scenario was
well-crafted in providing a situation that was not clearly in favor of one
party or the other.
After the case was
turned over to the jury, we discussed it and voted. A civil case requires a
majority not a unanimous jury as in a criminal case. We voted for the
plaintiff, deciding that the second product was an improvement and not a
completely new product.
Then we had an
opportunity to give the lawyers feedback. How many times do you have a chance
to critique an attorney? They listened and took our feedback. But, hey, that’s
why they were in the program—to become better lawyers. Much like we writers
seek feedback from our critique groups. It all helps us improve.
An enjoyable day. I
learned a lot, had a free lunch and even got paid for my time. Quite a
concept—being paid to learn, while the lawyers were paying big bucks for their
opportunity to learn.
Have you ever been on
a jury and if so what was your experience?