Jury Verdicts, Lesson One

I am becoming more and more concerned about the inability of many to respect fairly rendered jury verdicts.  This has implications beyond the decision in any one particular case.

The purpose of trial is to allow all parties to present their evidence and their interpretation of it to an impartial fact finder (either a jury or judge) and allow that fact finder to sort out that evidence, weigh conflicting evidence, assess credibility, etc.  Once the objective fact finder has determined the complete and accurate facts, the relevant law will be applied to those facts and that will result in the verdict.  The law essentially believes that once all sides have presented their evidence, the truth with come out and will prevail.

If one is unhappy with the verdict, it can be appealed or otherwise questioned within the judicial process, but, with very limited exceptions, one cannot appeal the jury’s actual finding of fact.  What one can appeal is that the wrong law was applied, or that the jury, due to evidentiary decisions by the court, did not receive relevant evidence or received evidence that was not relevant but affected the decision.  There are many other legal bases on which one can appeal.  An appellate court will, however, defer to the trial court on the purely factual findings because the fact finder was able to hear and see all the evidence and the witnesses and was therefore in a better position to assess credibility.  That is, the appellate court will not second guess the fact finder on purely factual findings.

This concept, that the one who hears and sees all the evidence and witnesses is also the one best able to determine the facts in a given case, applies to all those outside the role of juror/fact finder, even the parties to the case themselves.  No one but those assigned the role of impartial fact finder in a particular case is in as good a position to determine what to and what not to believe, how to understand facts and circumstances. 

After a verdict is rendered, one who is unhappy with it ought not to try to relitigate those facts in the press or elsewhere in the public arena.  The proper recourse is to file an appeal.   Not only does using the media rather than the courts represent a misunderstanding of our justice system, it also reflects a disrespect for the participants in that system, including the jurors.  It keeps emotions stirred up, not allowing the closure that our objective justice system allows.  It reflects a refusal to respect the objective standard of Truth inherent in our judicial system, and instead supports a Narrative Truth that looks not to evidence but to the story that one would like to believe. 

This narrative rather than objective approach to justice is demonstrated by Oberlin College’s reaction to the recent large damages verdict against it.  In that case, the day after the 2016 election, some Oberlin students were arrested for allegedly shoplifting at a local shop (Gibson’s).  The students were Black and claims of racism immediately arose.  Clear evidence showed that Gibson’s was not racist in either this instance or in the past; the students were charged (in a separate case) with shoplifting based in part on witness testimony and videos,  and they pleaded guilty to a lesser charge, stating that Gibson’s was not racist.  Nonetheless, the College and some of its administration supported student protests against Gibson’s, dropped contracts they had with Gibson’s, and otherwise encouraged negative action and publicity against Gibson’s.  After presentation of evidence a jury awarded actual and punitive damages to Gibson’s, its owners and employees for libel against it by the College itself and an administrator.    

The College now refuses to accept that the jury performed its duty of fairly assessing evidence from both sides and reaching a determination about the facts (in this case that libel resulting in actual damages occurred).  Instead, the College repeatedly states that the evidence did not support the jury’s decision, that the jury decided incorrectly because it did not agree with the College’s interpretation of the facts, or that the jury did not understand the case and its implications.  All of these assertions demean the jury and question its ability to listen to and assess evidence.

The College seems to now want to make the case about student rights and the First Amendment, neither of which were issues at trial.  The case was against the College, not the students, the allegations were for libel, interference with business, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and similar claims.  The question at trial was whether the College and its administrator had indeed acted as alleged and whether Gibson’s was entitled to receive compensation for the damages to it caused by those acts.  The jury found the answer to both questions to be Yes.

Nonetheless, the College, unwilling to accept that decision, now rehashes and presents its case in the media.  The College seems determined to convince the world that it was wrongfully found liable.  Now, there may very well have been some errors made at trial and some may be appealable and even arguably so substantial as to make some part of the verdict reversible or amendable.  But those are questions for the appellate court, not for the court of public opinion.

Oberlin College, through its post-trial behavior, is teaching its students to devalue our judicial system, to devalue objective evidence and objective truth.  It is teaching its students to place the narrative above all, to not accept outcomes of a fair judicial process when they disagree with the result.  Oberlin is teaching the students that it is OK to disrespect a system of fairness and objectivity whenever one simply doesn’t get one’s way.

It may seem insignificant to claim that a verdict one does not like is incorrect - of course one is not happy when they or someone they care about loses a case – but it is actually highly significant and detrimental to our way of life.  A failure to accept fairly rendered verdicts simply because they do not fit one’s narrative is reflective of a disrespect for our laws and our judicial system, both of which are at the core of and essential to our democracy.  When enough people in a society no longer support or conform to the standards of that society, then the society itself is in peril. 

The narrative approach to truth, justice, and even reality by its very nature ignores objective truth and in so doing denies the fair and equal justice that is the ideal to which our justice system, our society, our democracy aspire.  It is more consistent with various forms of government in which individuals have few rights and little voice.  Watching the narrative approach become more and more popular and prevalent is frightening to anyone who loves this country and everything for which it has stood for over 200 years.