This is the third post about the bicycle accident that Greg was involved in over two years ago and the subsequent lawsuit that was filed against him. You can read the first two posts here:
The Accident
Alternate Facts
Monday, December 4, 2017
Our attorney tells us to be at the courthouse by 8:30 a.m. The trial is scheduled to start at 9:00. As it happens, a reshuffling of multiple judge's chambers and courtrooms has occurred over the weekend, which means there are boxes piled everywhere and it is the first time our assigned judge and his clerk have heard a case in this particular courtroom. Things are a bit chaotic as the clerk has technical difficulties with her computer and printer; even the judge keeps trying to enter the courtroom through the wrong door from his chambers as the layout is different from his old office.
We finally get started after 9:30 a.m. The only people present in the courtroom are the judge and his clerk, the plaintiff and his attorney, Greg and our attorney, our attorney's assistant and myself. There are about 30 minutes of discussion regarding how the trial will proceed, what can and cannot be presented as evidence and, specifically, that there can be no mention of insurance by either party.
The clerk summons a random group of 25 potential jurors from that day's jury pool. By the time they get seated in the courtroom (again everything is assigned randomly by a computer, even the order that they will enter the room to take their seats in the jury box), it is already 10:30 a.m. The judge briefly summarizes the case that is being presented: This is a civil trial involving a bike-on-bike collision on the Springwater Corridor.
Each juror has to answer the same series of questions out loud: they state their name, area of residence (i.e. which quadrant or suburb of Portland), their education, their occupation, who they live with, those individual's occupations, if they drive, if they have ever been involved in a lawsuit or trial, if they have been on a jury before, and if they know anyone who is present in the courtroom. They are also asked if there is any reason they cannot be present for what is expected to be a three-day trial. Then the judge and both attorneys ask more specific questions, sometimes directed at one individual, other times to the group as a whole. Some of the questions include: do you ride a bicycle; do you have a personal bias against lawyers (the plaintiff is a lawyer); who is familiar with the Springwater Corridor; do you have any issues with the $250,000 in non-monetary losses that the plaintiff is requesting; if anyone has familiarity or personal experience with heart problems, a broken collarbone, or hip/pelvis/tailbone fractures (i.e. the alleged injuries), etc. This all takes more than 30 minutes.
The jurors are then dismissed to the adjacent holding room and the attorneys convene with their clients, including myself, to decide which three people they definitely DO NOT want on the jury. We challenge a guy who has tons of bike riding experience on the Springwater, but has suffered a broken collarbone as a result of a bike accident and says it is the worst pain he has ever felt. We also exclude a guy who has recently been in contact with the plaintiff's attorney to represent him (why the judge did not dismiss him outright is beyond me). Finally there are two jurors who visibly seem to not want to be there and have minimal education or bike riding experience. Our attorney chooses one of them to be excluded. The plaintiff's attorney challenges a woman who had an ugly divorce from her lawyer-husband, a psychologist who says the $250K in damages is exorbitant, and a retired teacher who also states that she has a problem with the $250K amount. Due to the randomization of the seating assignments, we then end up with 12 jurors and one alternate and the remaining six people are returned to the jury pool.
At this point it is just before noon, so the judge tells us to break for lunch and return by 1:20 p.m. Greg and I grab a sandwich from a nearby restaurant and, after eating, go for a walk to get some fresh air.
Once we return to the courtroom, the jurors are called in so the trial can begin. However one juror (one of the ones who visibly appeared to not want to be there) told the clerk during the lunch break that it will really be a hardship for her to sit on this jury for up to three days, so the judge calls her into the courtroom first, alone, and asks her why she didn't speak up sooner. This woman took him literally when he said that the only reason people could get out of being on a jury was if they were medically incapacitated (I think he said something along the lines of "if you are being operated on"). She has two jobs, takes care of her grandmother, etc. and even says that when she received the jury summons in the mail she called the courthouse to try to get out of it but they denied her request. In the end, the judge dismisses her without penalty but after a good scolding, and now we are down to 12 jurors and no alternate.
Finally, around 2:00 p.m., the jury is called into the room and sworn in. The judge again gives some basic instructions, primarily concerning not talking to each other or anyone else about the trial while it is ongoing, nor to use cell phones or any electronic device to communicate in any way about the case. He also describes how things will proceed, with the plaintiff always going first (i.e. giving his opening statement first, calling his witnesses first, giving his closing argument first) but that it in no way indicates preference or favorability.
The plaintiff's attorney's opening statement includes a Powerpoint presentation, half of which details his client's injuries and the remainder focuses on details about his client's experience riding the Springwater Corridor, measurements of the trail and of the bike he was riding on the day of the accident, and reasons why his client chose not to have his collarbone injury surgically repaired (he is a recovering alcoholic who is worries about getting addicted to pain meds).
Our attorney's opening statement also includes a Powerpoint presentation which focuses on Greg's bike riding experience, similar measurements and drawings related to the width and ability to pass other bikes on the Springwater Corridor, and closes with a summary slide showing that the plaintiff is going to testify about his pain and suffering but has no medical records or other evidence to back up his claims beyond five months after the accident.
The first witness to be called is the plaintiff himself. I am really not exaggerating to say that he is not a very compelling witness. He fidgets a lot and seems unsure when answering many of his attorney's questions (saying "I don't really remember"). He is asked to recall the day of the accident, the accident itself, his injuries and subsequent medical treatment, as well as questions about his life history, bike riding experience, his friendship with the attorney who is representing him, and his friendship with his bike riding companion.
On cross-examination our attorney homes in on the plaintiff's statements that conflict with what he said under oath during the deposition in February, his inability to remember specifics about the accident, some specifics about his medical history (to show that some of the damages he is claiming likely have nothing to do with the accident), and why he threw away the bike helmet he was wearing at the time of the accident as well as the bike frame which he claims was damaged.
The second witness is the plaintiff's cardiologist. His deposition was videotaped a few days before the trial and that is now played for the judge and jury to see and hear. For about 30 minutes both attorneys ask him questions related to the plaintiff's past and current heart issues, which include a quintuple bypass in the early 2000's as well as a surgically implanted pacemaker and defibrillator. The plaintiff has chronic heart disease and his ejection fraction (amount of blooding pumping out of the heart) is much lower than the average person's. There is some evidence based on a blood test that was done at the hospital in the days after the accident that the plaintiff suffered a very minor heart attack which he never felt nor had any other symptoms.
Once the video testimony is complete, the judge decides to adjourn for the day as it is now around 4:30 p.m. We are to report back to the courtroom at 8:30 the next morning, which is where I will begin my next (and final) post.
Monday, December 4, 2017
Our attorney tells us to be at the courthouse by 8:30 a.m. The trial is scheduled to start at 9:00. As it happens, a reshuffling of multiple judge's chambers and courtrooms has occurred over the weekend, which means there are boxes piled everywhere and it is the first time our assigned judge and his clerk have heard a case in this particular courtroom. Things are a bit chaotic as the clerk has technical difficulties with her computer and printer; even the judge keeps trying to enter the courtroom through the wrong door from his chambers as the layout is different from his old office.
We finally get started after 9:30 a.m. The only people present in the courtroom are the judge and his clerk, the plaintiff and his attorney, Greg and our attorney, our attorney's assistant and myself. There are about 30 minutes of discussion regarding how the trial will proceed, what can and cannot be presented as evidence and, specifically, that there can be no mention of insurance by either party.
The clerk summons a random group of 25 potential jurors from that day's jury pool. By the time they get seated in the courtroom (again everything is assigned randomly by a computer, even the order that they will enter the room to take their seats in the jury box), it is already 10:30 a.m. The judge briefly summarizes the case that is being presented: This is a civil trial involving a bike-on-bike collision on the Springwater Corridor.
Each juror has to answer the same series of questions out loud: they state their name, area of residence (i.e. which quadrant or suburb of Portland), their education, their occupation, who they live with, those individual's occupations, if they drive, if they have ever been involved in a lawsuit or trial, if they have been on a jury before, and if they know anyone who is present in the courtroom. They are also asked if there is any reason they cannot be present for what is expected to be a three-day trial. Then the judge and both attorneys ask more specific questions, sometimes directed at one individual, other times to the group as a whole. Some of the questions include: do you ride a bicycle; do you have a personal bias against lawyers (the plaintiff is a lawyer); who is familiar with the Springwater Corridor; do you have any issues with the $250,000 in non-monetary losses that the plaintiff is requesting; if anyone has familiarity or personal experience with heart problems, a broken collarbone, or hip/pelvis/tailbone fractures (i.e. the alleged injuries), etc. This all takes more than 30 minutes.
The jurors are then dismissed to the adjacent holding room and the attorneys convene with their clients, including myself, to decide which three people they definitely DO NOT want on the jury. We challenge a guy who has tons of bike riding experience on the Springwater, but has suffered a broken collarbone as a result of a bike accident and says it is the worst pain he has ever felt. We also exclude a guy who has recently been in contact with the plaintiff's attorney to represent him (why the judge did not dismiss him outright is beyond me). Finally there are two jurors who visibly seem to not want to be there and have minimal education or bike riding experience. Our attorney chooses one of them to be excluded. The plaintiff's attorney challenges a woman who had an ugly divorce from her lawyer-husband, a psychologist who says the $250K in damages is exorbitant, and a retired teacher who also states that she has a problem with the $250K amount. Due to the randomization of the seating assignments, we then end up with 12 jurors and one alternate and the remaining six people are returned to the jury pool.
At this point it is just before noon, so the judge tells us to break for lunch and return by 1:20 p.m. Greg and I grab a sandwich from a nearby restaurant and, after eating, go for a walk to get some fresh air.
Once we return to the courtroom, the jurors are called in so the trial can begin. However one juror (one of the ones who visibly appeared to not want to be there) told the clerk during the lunch break that it will really be a hardship for her to sit on this jury for up to three days, so the judge calls her into the courtroom first, alone, and asks her why she didn't speak up sooner. This woman took him literally when he said that the only reason people could get out of being on a jury was if they were medically incapacitated (I think he said something along the lines of "if you are being operated on"). She has two jobs, takes care of her grandmother, etc. and even says that when she received the jury summons in the mail she called the courthouse to try to get out of it but they denied her request. In the end, the judge dismisses her without penalty but after a good scolding, and now we are down to 12 jurors and no alternate.
Finally, around 2:00 p.m., the jury is called into the room and sworn in. The judge again gives some basic instructions, primarily concerning not talking to each other or anyone else about the trial while it is ongoing, nor to use cell phones or any electronic device to communicate in any way about the case. He also describes how things will proceed, with the plaintiff always going first (i.e. giving his opening statement first, calling his witnesses first, giving his closing argument first) but that it in no way indicates preference or favorability.
The plaintiff's attorney's opening statement includes a Powerpoint presentation, half of which details his client's injuries and the remainder focuses on details about his client's experience riding the Springwater Corridor, measurements of the trail and of the bike he was riding on the day of the accident, and reasons why his client chose not to have his collarbone injury surgically repaired (he is a recovering alcoholic who is worries about getting addicted to pain meds).
Our attorney's opening statement also includes a Powerpoint presentation which focuses on Greg's bike riding experience, similar measurements and drawings related to the width and ability to pass other bikes on the Springwater Corridor, and closes with a summary slide showing that the plaintiff is going to testify about his pain and suffering but has no medical records or other evidence to back up his claims beyond five months after the accident.
The first witness to be called is the plaintiff himself. I am really not exaggerating to say that he is not a very compelling witness. He fidgets a lot and seems unsure when answering many of his attorney's questions (saying "I don't really remember"). He is asked to recall the day of the accident, the accident itself, his injuries and subsequent medical treatment, as well as questions about his life history, bike riding experience, his friendship with the attorney who is representing him, and his friendship with his bike riding companion.
On cross-examination our attorney homes in on the plaintiff's statements that conflict with what he said under oath during the deposition in February, his inability to remember specifics about the accident, some specifics about his medical history (to show that some of the damages he is claiming likely have nothing to do with the accident), and why he threw away the bike helmet he was wearing at the time of the accident as well as the bike frame which he claims was damaged.
The second witness is the plaintiff's cardiologist. His deposition was videotaped a few days before the trial and that is now played for the judge and jury to see and hear. For about 30 minutes both attorneys ask him questions related to the plaintiff's past and current heart issues, which include a quintuple bypass in the early 2000's as well as a surgically implanted pacemaker and defibrillator. The plaintiff has chronic heart disease and his ejection fraction (amount of blooding pumping out of the heart) is much lower than the average person's. There is some evidence based on a blood test that was done at the hospital in the days after the accident that the plaintiff suffered a very minor heart attack which he never felt nor had any other symptoms.
Once the video testimony is complete, the judge decides to adjourn for the day as it is now around 4:30 p.m. We are to report back to the courtroom at 8:30 the next morning, which is where I will begin my next (and final) post.
No comments:
Post a Comment