Don't you think the jury should see ALL the evidence?

[joni1269]

I apologize in advance for the length of this post - I really want to hear your opinions on this - so thank you for taking the time to read on..

I am so disillusioned right now with our justice system. I don't understand how they expect a jury to make a fair decision, without seeing ALL the evidence. Of course the jury doesn't know about the missing evidence..

Here's the story - my husband was driving a service truck for a big company several years ago. He made a left hand turn at a light, and was struck by a car. The car was traveling the opposite direction from where DH was turning from. DH testified that the light was green when he began his turn, but began to cycle right after. The car hit the truck hard enough to roll it onto the driver's side. DH climbs out of the cab through the passenger window, and notices the car is on fire. He proceeds to put out the fire, and then pick up his tools that were scattered all over the road. The driver of the car was being tended to by a lady, and he feared his tools may cause an accident. Two witnesses told the police officer (this is noted on the accident report) that the car was racing the light. That the car had a yellow light.

DH was hurt, and so was the driver of the car. I wish I had a copy of the pictures of the damage to this car - it is sickening. The car weighs no more than 1000 - 1500 pounds, where the service truck weights 16,000+ empty, and several thousand more with DH's tools in it. Several times in court, both attorneys stated that both DH and the other driver are lucky to be alive. At any rate, DH slammed through the driver's side window onto the concrete when the truck rolled over. His shoulder was very sore, and he had numerous abrasions and contusions from the seat belt. He spent a day or two in bed, but all in all was OK within a week or so. The driver of the car sustained most of her injuries from the air bag, and the seat belt. She left the scene in an ambulance, after refusing to go twice. I picked DH up at the office. (You know men - no doctors for me LOL)

We got notice of the lawsuit almost exactly two years later. The insurance company covering DH's employer began the process of settling these types of claims. Her attorney wanted $15,000, and the insurance company was not willing to pay, because her light was yellow. Also, the body part the other driver was complaining about, was injured on the job just 6 weeks before this accident. So the insurance company believed it was a pre existing condition. The decision was made to go to court.

Since the suit was filed against the company, which is based in a city 300 miles away, that is where the trial was held. We got two days notice that we had to appear. The other driver's attorney managed to get many crucial pieces of evidence thrown out. The jury never saw it or even heard about it, because the judge instructed us not to mention or refer to it. This evidence included pictures of the scene that DH took right after the accident (this is company policy), the witness testimony that she was racing the light, the accident report denoting this witness testimony, and all evidence having to do with the insurance company. Our attorney's had to use medical evidence that the condition the other driver was suing for, was pre existing. I feel our attorney proved this beyond a doubt, but it wasn't enough. When DH was being cross examined on the stand, the plaintiff's attorney starts yelling about perjury, and did he know the penalties. DH was not lying - but the jury got the impression he was from the attorney's outburst. Also, he told the jury that we drug them all to court (we didn't file - they did) and that it was their responsibility to see that this big company did not run over any more little guys. Without our evidence, all the jury saw was big company trying to bully the little guy. The company had nothing to do with the decision to go to court, or the negotiation process, that was the insurance company.

The jury gave them MUCH more than they asked for. We do not have to pay for this, as we are under the insurance company's umbrella. But the insurance company does, and all of us pay for that in the end. I am just sick about the deception and the games the plaintiff's attorney played. He literally played the jury - instead of presenting the evidence, and letting them make a decision.

They call this justice? They should stop the attorney's from playing games - from getting crucial evidence thrown out. So the jury can see the whole truth. This is a little off topic, but I think the court should raise court costs and filing fees, and pay the jurors more than $6 a day. Maybe less people would file frivolous suits, if it cost a lot more.

What do you guys think?

[Advertisement]

[PreciousDarlin]

I know how you feel about a jury not hearing all the evidence. A very good friend of mine was on trial for murder (he honestly thought his life was endanger, and could have been due to the use of ephedra products). The judge on the case withheld the defenses expert witness (accredited doctor that deals with the effect of ephedra on the mind and perceptions) until AFTER the jury had deliberated and reached a verdict. Many members of the jury, upon hearing the testimony, asked why they hadn't heard it before deliberation which leads one to believe it might have changed the verdict. Right now, my friend is serving a life sentence for 1st degree murder.

[buttrfli]

I don't know how a judge determines what a jury hears. It could be that he thought that going through a yellow light didn't make the driver at fault? I dunno.

I am sorry you guys are going through all of this, but thank God for insurance!

[joni1269]

Thanks, and yes - we are VERY grateful for the insurance company.

Actually, he refused to admit the police report because the officer could not appear, which made it hearsay. The witness's depositions were thrown out because they could not appear. It was really to their advantage that this trial was so far away.. But you are right, who had the right of way was the big question. The way the law reads, DH had control of the intersection (he was almost clear of the intersection), and the car should have avoided the accident. It is called Ordinary Care. Our attorney did prove that point well in court, and it was uncontested.