PART I - THE INVITATION
As
any who have read this blog or conversed with me otherwise online are
aware, I am majoring in three subjects in college; pre-law, political
science and american history.
Of these, it's
pre-law that I intend to make my mark. I will attend law school and
become a practicing attorney -- hopefully in my hometown of Portland,
Oregon. I've been interested in law as a career for the longest time; as
long as I can remember. The source of this is very clear and has never
been in question.
* * *
My
Uncle Mike is two years younger than my dad and, for the past 22 years
has been a practicing attorney in Southern California. A general
practitioner with an emphasis in civil litigation, most of his cases
take him to Orange, Los Angeles and Riverside Counties.
I
was actually born in Santa Ana, California, not moving to Portland
until I was almost eight months old. My Uncle Mike lived near my parents
at the time. In fact, my older brothers stayed with he and my Aunt Amy
when my mom was in labor with me and my dad was pacing in the waiting
room in expectations of news that his third child had been born.
Whenever
Uncle Mike and Aunt Amy would visit (most often with their own
children, Laurie who is two years older than me, and David who is three
years younger) or when we would visit them, I was always fascinated with
stories about his cases and his work. Despite criticism or jokes
directed toward attorneys, I'd always felt it was a noble and necessary
profession. In many, many instances, a client's life can be greatly
affected by the outcome of their case -- and specifically, the
effectiveness of his or her attorney.
During those
visits, I often found myself sitting with the adults as they discussed
stories, including Uncle Mike's cases. Forget that my siblings and
cousins were outside playing or in other rooms of the house consumed
with their own conversations. I wanted to be there to learn as much I
could. To say I was enthralled would me a major understatement.
From
an early age, my parents learned that I have a high aptitude for
learning and gathering information, and deciphering it. My comprehension
level has always been exceptionally high and I possess a genius-level
intelligence quotient (IQ). My father has often told me I am a lot like
my uncle as we are similar in our ways of analytical thinking.
For
my uncle's part, he has told me on numerous occasions that with my
mind, I would make make for an excellent attorney. He once told me, and
he was likely being overly complmentary, that if I ever went up against
him in court, he would just quit working on his case out of futility
since I would beat him.
It was when I was about 10
years old that I decided that I wanted to become an attorney in my
professional life. Uncle Mike has been an amazing in his nurturing and
encouragement.
* * *
As
usual, my uncle has a huge slate of cases. He is mentoring a young
attorney in his office, and employs two law clerks, and an assistant. As
this summer approached, it appeared that one of his civil cases would
going to go to trial. It was then that he called me with his offer.
He
told me a little about the case (under the condition of the information
being privileged) and offered me what I might just refer to as the
opportunity of a lifetime; at least, thus far in my lifetime. Uncle Mike
called it a working vacation where I would come down to his home in
Westminster, California and he would show me the process that he goes
through by preparing for a trial. This education was to include
everything from case review to jury selection to witness preparation to
trial observation.
Oh, and it would also give me a chance to visit he and Aunt Amy for the first time in four years.
Needless to say, I leapt at the chance to observe the trial process.
In
early June, my uncle began sending me the case profile and other
information to get me up to speed. I spent the last two weeks of June
doing just that.
* * *
On
the morning of July 5 while at work at my family's business, I received
a call from my uncle. The trial was to start on July 10 -- the
following Tuesday -- with jury selection. He had just found out the
actual start date that morning. I was to fly down on Saturday the
seventh and begin learning the following day.
I was
also thrilled to find out I will be sitting at the plaintiff's table
during the jury selection process. Uncle Mike and the respondent's
counsel will sift through the jury pool to attempt to find the 12 people
who will be most advantageous for their respective cases. He wants me
to essentially keep score of their answers. Not that he needs me to keep
track of it for him, but that it will give me an idea of how that
process works and what he looks for in a potential juror.
During
the trial itself, I will sit in the gallery of the courtroom observing,
learning and taking notes. It will be a nearly empty gallery, as the
courtroom will be closed due to the fact our client is a minor.
While I'm wide-eyed at this working vacation, I know I am fortunate to have this opportunity.
PART II - JURY SELECTION
The sun was peaking over the horizon when I woke up. From
the moment my eyes opened, I knew this day would be like no other. This
day was to be truly my initial first-hand experience in the profession I
have chosen.
Though it was to be a serious day in a
series of serious days, my excitement had turned me into a bundle of
energy. Fortunately, thanks to my cousin, David, I was able to expend
much of this energy with an extended morning run.
My
Uncle Mike and I (which, by the way, is not his real first name, but a
nickname - long story) got to his office at around 8:30. He worked on a
couple other cases for a while before we were to head to the courthouse
at around 10 for jury selection.
* * *
Secrecy
is paramount in a civil case; even more so since our client -- the
plaintiff -- is a minor. Beyond that, I really cannot delve into the
specifics of the case. Technically speaking, most of it is protected
under attorney-client privilege. As I am technically working with my
uncle, I am bound by that as well. As you can see, it's quite technical!
The
first order of business was for my Uncle Mike to meet with the
respondent's attorney regarding a possible settlement. They've been
discussing settlement possibilities for several months and, as it turned
out there were no new offers, nor any new acceptance of the previous
offer. We were to proceed with selecting the jury for the trial.
My
uncle and I had studied the questions he was to ask potential jurors
and how he wanted me to keep score. I would sit next to him at the
plaintiff's table. We had two yellow legal tablets placed on the table
between us; one placed at the edge of the table near us, and one toward
the judge (or, "above" the first tablet). Both had notes scribbled on
them, and each had a single word written and circled in the lower left
hand corner. This was my uncle's idea; his game and teaching tool.
"Stanford" was to indicate
yes and "otherwise" was to indicate
no.
Following
each question, my uncle would touch one of the pads and I was to score
it. Then, any notes I had on a particular answer or potential juror, I
would write down in a third column.
* * *
Court,
and even the jury selection process, is not like what you see on
television for the most part. Attorneys questioning a witness are not
up walking all over the courtroom. There is no pacing back and forth for
theatrics. By no means are they breaking decorum with adversarial
banter with the opposing attorney.
Basically, the
attorney's stay in their seats -- at least during jury selection -- or
stand in front of a podium as they question a witness during a trial.
Any documents or evidence which needs to be passed to or from a witness
is relayed through a bailiff.
* * *
Per
protocol, we rose as the judge entered. He announced the case number
and case title, and asked if a settlement had been reached. His clerk
indicated there had not. He then did a role call. My uncle stated his
name as plaintiff's attorney and the respondent's attorney stated his on
behalf of his client.
The respective clients were not
in the courtroom on this day, as it would really serve no purpose for
them to just sit in the gallery for duration of the selection process.
My
uncle then spoke. "Your honor, if it please the court ... joining the
plaintiff's table for today's jury selection is one of my assistants who
just so happens to be my niece," and gave my name for the record. After
the respondent's attorney said he had no objection to my being there,
we proceeded with the selection process.
* * *
Exactly
28 potential jurors were interviewed both by my uncle and the
respondent's attorney. Neither seemed to ask too many questions, and
some of the inquiries were definitely irrelevant to the case. However,
after about the fourth interview, I could see what my uncle was doing,
and the purpose for his questions.
All the while, we
used our little system to keep score, and after the second interview, I
even started keeping my own score. I marked a "Stanford" here and an
"otherwise" there as the interviews went along. Not that it mattered,
but it helped me to learn better by judging the members of the
prospective jury pool for myself.
I fully had no
illusion that my uncle has done this enough times he did not need my
help in the least. That turned out to be correct. Despite that, we
discussed what we heard up to those points. His comments made sense to
me. As I indicated in my previous blog, we think in a very similar
fashion.
At about 4 p.m. both attorney's went through
the jury list, accepting and dismissing those members each thought as
best in regards to their case.
In the end 14 members remained in the jury box -- 12 on the active jury and two alternates.
* * *
So
jury selection is complete and we're ready to move forward with opening
statements on Wednesday (in fact, those may have taken place already as
you read this). I feel confident those 12 jurors will render a fair
verdict based on the evidence. Saying that, I am confident that our
evidence will outshine anything the respondent will have to offer.
I'll
be in the gallery tomorrow while one of my uncle's law clerks will join
him at the plaintiff's table. I'll be taking notes as I planned and
will be paying attention to all the special nuances of the trial. This
experience has been amazing, and the trial has yet to start.
I feel as if I can already see tomorrow's sun peaking over the horizon as I think about it.
PART III - TRIAL AND VERDICT
With no more postponements -- and the jury set -- Wednesday was to be the start of the trial.
As
I've mentioned in the previous blogs, I am unable to say too much about
the contents of the case itself. Suffice to say that our client is now
14 years old girl and the plaintiff in the case. The incident which led
to these proceedings took place approximately two years ago.
Aside
from the principles involved in the case, the gallery was empty. My
Uncle Mike sat at the left side of the plaintiff's table, which was set
to the right of the respondent's table and nearer to the jury than the
respondent. His law clerk sat on the right side of the table and our
client in the middle. Her mother sat in the front row of the gallery, as
did I.
The respondent's attorney was positioned at the
right side of his table, with his client to the left of him -- the
furthest from the jury of all the participants.
* * *
Opening
statements by the attorneys can be brief or can extend to several
moments. My uncle prefers the former. He lists the witnesses and a short
summary of what their testimony will entail. He finishes with a
description of the
absolute and only conclusion to which the jury will be able to come to, including damages.
"I've
been doing this a lot of years," my uncle told the jury. "I have a
pretty good idea how the defense is going to try to spin this, and which
laws they plan to twist to confuse you. However, when you hear from
(our) witnesses, all you'll have to do is pay attention to the truth, to
the facts and to the letter of the law. Once you do those simple
things, your duty will be clear. There's no confusion there."
We
had five witnesses, including our client, scheduled to testify. She
would take the stand second to last, with the psychologist who assisted
her following the incident being our final witness. The psychologist
would confirm that our client both was severely impacted by the
incident, and also reaffirm the validity of her testimony.
Often,
the plaintiff will take the stand first or last, but my uncle told me
before the trial that he preferred to shake things up a bit, having the
jury's last memory being of a professional of some sort -- whether it be
a psychologist, medical doctor or law enforcement professional.
* * *
Our
witnesses consisted of a police officer, two eyewitnesses, our client
and the psychologist. Uncle Mike kept their testimony confined to the
specifics of what they saw. While it seemed he didn't want to leave an
opening for opposing counsel to jump through during cross examination,
he also didn't seem to hold back when it came to soliciting each
person's respective testimony.
Each of our witnesses
told their story, then were cross examined by the respondent's attorney.
From my perspective, it didn't seem as if any of them were shaken nor
discredited by the cross examination. I like to think that had a lot to
do with my uncle's direct examination.
When it came to
our client taking the stand, I received some confirmation on something I
had already assumed. One of the areas in which I wish to practice law
is in child advocacy. Our client had her attorney -- my uncle -- so
there was no child advocate assigned. Had there been a witness under 18
directly affected by the proceedings, the judge may have appointed an
advocate for that witness. I had learned that, but was unsure until
talking to my uncle prior to the trial's beginning.
She
was excellent on the stand. The judge was very good about slowing
things down when they needed to, or giving a nudge to speed them up when
they needed to be. She told of what happened to her and how it has
affected her. In fact, the cross examination from the respondent's
attorney was rather brief. At least, it was more brief than I had
anticipated.
* * *
It
was just after the lunch break on Thursday (the second day) when my
uncle rested the plaintiff's case. It was a little quicker than even he
had anticipated, but he later told me he had heard all the testimony he
thought we would need. He felt even adding another witness would run the
risk of cluttering our point. He wanted to paint a clear, concise and
overall picture of our case, and what we were asking the jury to do.
At
about 2:15 p.m., it would be the respondent's turn to begin presenting
his case; for lack of better term in a civil case -- their defense. The
respondent was to present testimony from four witnesses for the jury's
consideration.
* * *
Two
respondent witnesses testified Thursday afternoon. Both claimed to be
eyewitnesses. They told their versions of what happened. My feeling was
that they seemed very well coached, especially the second of the two. I
dismissed that as me being overly critical and perhaps somewhat biased.
That is, until my uncle cross examined the second one.
He
was able to paint a picture, using the second witness' answers to
establish that the witness could not have seen exactly what he said he
could. It was all about angles and line of sight. As it turns out, the
witness heard of a commotion, then came from around a corner to see just
the end of the incident. In other words, he could not have actually
seen the events leading up to what happened.
Needless to say, I was quite impressed and proud of my uncle.
* * *
We had been informed that a psychologist and the responded himself were set to testify on Friday.
The
psychologist had visited with our client briefly twice in the weeks
leading up to the trial. Her purpose was to essentially demean the
testimony of our psychologist. She told a good story and, had I not
heard it from our client herself, I might have believed this witness. My
uncle was not phased by the performance. His cross examination was very
short. It primarily consisted of clarifying the time she had spent with
our client -- both the amount of time and the actually things discussed
during that time. He didn't ask a single question to clarify her
professional opinion.
The last witness to take the
stand was the respondent. I had been informed to expect stubbornness
from him. That assessment rang true. He essentially confirmed the events
as depicted by our client and our eyewitnesses. However, he claimed he
was in his legal right. It was "just something unfortunate" and our
client was "in the wrong place at the wrong time."
Uncle
Mike asked him just two questions on cross examination. They weren't
attacks. Just basic questions. Again, my uncle told me later that he
wanted to give the jury the impression that the respondent's testimony
just wasn't all that important to the merits of the overall case.
* * *
Closing
arguments were scheduled opposite of the openings. The respondent's
attorney went first. His instructions to the jury seemed to echo the
testimony of his client. He cited one case law which, to me, didn't seem
to completely apply to the case. In the end, he told the jurors there
was not enough evidence to justify finding in favor of the plaintiff.
I
believe my uncle had his closing argument prepared a couple weeks prior
to the trial's start date. He recapped each witness who had taken the
stand; first the respondent's then ours. He then pointed to each piece
of evidence. It was at this point when I understood why he hadn't dug
deeper into the respondent's psychologist during cross examination. He
was able to use the questions he did not ask as leverage. He painted the
picture for the jury about our doctor knowing our client much better,
much more often and for much longer.
It made perfect sense to me. This was also the type of strategy I had hoped to learn while observing this case.
* * *
During
the entire proceedings I was scanning the jury to see when any of them
might be affected by a certain piece of testimony, or something said by
the attorney's during opening or closing arguments. There were raised
eyebrows, confused looks and several nods along the way. Those
mannerisms seemed to correspond to those things which made the most --
or least -- sense. It was fascinating to observe that type of human
behavior.
The case itself seemed to go by quickly. My
uncle had anticipated four days or so, and just before the lunch break
on friday, the judge gave the jurors their instructions.
Three-and-a-half-days later and the case was in the hands of the jury.
* * *
We
figured the jury would be out for much of the afternoon. Knowing that,
my uncle really didn't want nor need to go back to the office on a
Friday afternoon. We went to lunch which, after three days of courthouse
cafeteria food, was wonderful. We did go back to his office for a short
time where he grabbed files from a couple other cases to look at over
the weekend. This was something else about which I had been curious.
Exactly how much of an attorney's work is done outside of the common 8
a.m. to 5 p.m. work day? My question was answered; quite a bit.
After
a call to the court clerk where we found out the jury remained in
deliberations, we went home to relax. My uncle looked over the files to
one of the cases while laid down on the patio under some shade.
Uncle
Mike's phone rang at about 5:30. It was the court clerk. The jury had
come back. It was decided we would head to the courtroom to hear the
verdict, rather than let the jury's decision linger over the weekend.
This also would enable the jurors to get back to their everyday lives on
Monday rather than have to come in and deliver their verdict.
* * *
It
was a quarter after six o'clock when all the principles had arrived and
the judge came out from his chambers. As Uncle Mike's law clerk was off
for the weekend, I took his spot at the right end of our table. Then
the judge
called for the jurors to come out from their deliberation room.
We stood after the jury foreman confirmed to the judge that the jury had, in fact, come to a verdict.
Then it was announced.
Verdict
in favor of the plaintiff. I'm almost kicking myself now for not
looking in the corner of my eye at the respondent to gauge his reaction.
We stood expressionless. With the decision for the plaintiff, there is
another step.
The foreman announced that the jury had
awarded damages. The compensatory damages were pretty straight forward,
as we had submitted the specific amount to the court prior to calling
our first witness. At the same time we had submitted a schedule for
punitive damages as well. The jury followed that schedule, awarding the
exact amount for which our client was asking.
I had
learned that the deliberation time in a civil case is two-fold. A
plaintiff hopes the jury takes little time in finding in favor of their
case. Conversely, the plaintiff hopes the jury takes quite a bit of time
determining damages. My uncle was satisfied with the result.
* * *
As
the reader of any of the blogs in this series can surmise, this has
been an exhilarating, exciting and educational experience for me. It was
everything for which I could have hoped.
I very much
try to avoid making assumptions or having preconceived notions, but that
at times is oh so difficult. What I've learned over this past week is a
jump start into doing things in the correct fashion and in the correct
order. Law is extremely procedural. That is what I will take away from
this experience.
I'll be the first person to admit that
I don't know it all, and one case certainly does not make me an expert.
What I now have is a starting point.
That's something I really didn't have before.
~ Kassandra
Note: This Blog was originally written in three parts on separate days. I have compiled all of them here so they appear in chronological order of how events occurred.
