The Courtroom

I have been told constantly over the three days that I have been here that I am going to be bored out of my mind for 10 weeks because all lawyers ever do is sit at their desks and get coffee. There are no "smoking gun" pieces of evidence, and they do not argue in front of a judge everyday (much less a jury). And yes, at times I have been a little bored already, but it has mostly been very interesting.

Yesterday I got to see the jury instructions and closing statements of a trial. It was a trial involving medical malpractice in which a patient died and his mother was going against the company owning the healthcare facility. The mother was asking for money in compensation for the grief, suffering, and loss of companionship she experienced as a result of the death of her son. In order for the verdict to be in favor of the mother, the plaintiff's attorney must provide sufficient evidence that the man died as a direct result of the company (such as improperly trained staff).

The first hour or so that I witnessed was used by the lawyers on the two sides arguing over what instructions to give the jury on making their decision in front of the judge. I was told that the judge was very patient, unlike most judges who will scream and shout if the paperwork is not in on time.

After this was successfully resolved, the jury was brought in. First they were read the jury instructions and then a lawyer from each side got to give their closing statements - the final argument by an attorney on behalf of his/her client after all evidence has been produced for both sides

The first difference I noticed from TV shows during this trial is that closing statements are not the precise, emotional two minute long statements that you see on the shows. I only got to see some of the plaintiffs (about 15 minutes) closing statement before I had to leave. The attorney began by talking about  Dante's Inferno and accusing the healthcare company for being in the 7th layer of Hell because they betrayed the trust of the man looking for medical help. He then went on to go into depth of the jury instructions, trying to show the jury how they could come to a verdict in his favor based on these instructions. Although I did not see the whole thing (and none of the defense), I got the general idea of how closing statements work. One thing I noticed that seemed pretty consistent between real life and the media, is that no one wants to have jury duty. All the jurors seemed very bored, and the guy in the front even kept making annoyed faces!

Overall, it was a very interesting experience to see what it is like to actually argue in front of a judge and jury. I am very interested in seeing how the jury selection process works (as I was surprised that the majority of jurors on this case were women) and I am hoping that I can experience it in a possibly upcoming trial in March. I hope you all are enjoying reading about my experiences!