Before the O.J. Simpson verdict in his murder trial, persons called for jury duty were relaxed when they were informed different standards of proof were required between a criminal and civil trial.  Many people formed opinions that O.J. Simpson was guilty before the jury in his criminal case acquitted him.  These people were adamant in their criticism of our jury trial system of justice when he was found not guilty.

Very few people were made aware of the fact that a civil jury considering virtually the same facts found O.J. Simpson liable for millions of dollars in damages for causing the death of Ronald Goldman based on the greater weight of virtually the same evidence.

As the years passed, civil trial lawyers found fewer prospective jurors holding adamant opinions about the responsibilities of jurors to follow the instructions on the law in reaching their verdicts in criminal and civil cases.

As a result of the intense news media coverage of the Casey Anthony murder trial, we will again be finding people called for jury duty holding very strong opinions regarding our jury trial system and the role of jurors in the process.

Even a week after the verdict in the Anthony murder trial, almost 90% of the public believes the jury was wrong in not convicting her.  These people are not impressed by the fact the jury found essential elements of proof necessary to convict her were missing and they do not seem to understand the jurors’ explanation that they considered themselves obliged to follow the instructions by the judge and acquit her because there was reasonable doubt in their minds from the evidence presented.

As civil trail lawyers were obliged to do when conducting voir dire (jury selection) in civil trials following the O.J. Simpson criminal trial, it will be necessary for them to question prospective jurors long and hard following the Anthony verdict in order to determine whether their subjective emotional reactions will override their ability to objectively consider the law as it applies to the evidence in a particular case.

The law only requires a plaintiff in a civil case to prove his or her case by a preponderance of the evidence, that is, whether the evidence more likely than not shows the defendant caused the plaintiff’s damages.  When questioning prospective jurors during the voir dire examination in a civil trial, civil trial lawyers must identify people who feel comfortable in deciding a case based on their emotional responses and their preconceived notions about people.  They must determine whether a prospective juror will rely on his or her personal beliefs about how things happened or whether they will limit their decision to a higher burden of proof than the more likely than not standard.

If a prospective juror is inclined to be guided by their emotional response about how the plaintiff suffered as a result of the negligence of the defendant, such a person would probably be comfortable in applying the preponderance of the evidence standard to the technical evidence regarding the cause of the collision and the treatment the injured party did or will require.

A civil trial lawyer must be very sensitive to this subtle distinction in the emotional responses people who are called to serve on juries will have to the facts in cases now as compared with those who will have an inclination to demand absolute proof on every issue even when the law only requires the plaintiff to prove his case by the greater weight of the evidence, that is, by 51%, in a civil case.

The laws of the United States and the State of Florida provide people who are injured and damaged due to the carelessness or negligence of another a right to have a civil jury trial to determine whether the offending party is liable for the injuries and damages caused and the value of the damages the injured party sustained.

Juries and courts are available to determine whether the injury occurred as a result of the carelessness of the other party, whether it be in the operation of a motor vehicle, boat, motorcycle or airplane; whether an entertainment facility or a business failed to provide reasonably safe premises for its business invitees; or, whether a professional failed  to follow the acceptable standard of care which professionals in the same discipline are expected to follow.  Also, State and Federal laws protect citizens from law enforcement officers who exceed their authority by employing excessive force on a citizen when a reasonable law enforcement officer under similar circumstances would not have believed the force used by the officer was justified under the circumstances or whether there was probable cause to believe the accused committed the crime for which the law enforcement officer arrested the citizen.

When a person or a loved one has been injured by another as a result of the aforementioned conduct, it is important for him or her to contact an attorney who is experienced in that particular area of civil trial law.

There are very few truly experienced civil trial attorneys in Central Florida in Orange, Seminole, Osceola, Lake, Brevard and Volusia counties, and in the surrounding cities of Orlando, who have handled cases such as those mentioned. Before you choose an attorney for yourself or a loved one, you should carefully ascertain whether the lawyer who will be actually handling your case has been there before.   A civil jury trial is not where you want to learn about the skill of your lawyer.

Everybody is vulnerable to car accidents and truck accidents. Motor vehicle collisions occur without warning. You will face many hardships following a collision, including loss of use of your vehicle and loss of wages or income. You will probably have pain, suffering and perhaps even the death of a loved one. These factors result in significant financial hardship.

When such a malady occurs to you or your loved ones, it will be necessary for you to prove that the collision occurred as a result of the other driver’s mistakes, negligence and failure to use due care in failing to obey simple common sense rules of the road and motor vehicle statutes.

In order to recover compensation from the person who violated your rights you only have to prove that the collision or accident occurred because the party who caused the collision failed to exercise reasonable care.

Reasonable care is that care which a reasonable person would have exercised under the same or similar circumstances. You must show failure to use reasonable care caused the collision.

In order to prove this basic and fundamental element of your claim you should immediately gather all the information you can and immediately retain an experienced personal injury attorney like who will know that statements must be obtained immediately from any eyewitness, on-board computers of the vehicles must be downloaded, photographs must be taken of the scene and the damages to both vehicles, vehicle repair bills must be obtained, and all emergency room, hospital, doctors’ and radiology records must be collected and studied.

Because automobile, truck and motorcycle collisions usually involve motor vehicle insurance all applicable insurance policies must also be studied by an experienced personal injury attorney who understands insurance law.

The above should not be undertaken by a layperson. Only a skilled personal injury lawyer will know what is important, relevant and material to your claim. Therefore, you should retain an experienced personal injury lawyer who is well-versed in the science of accident reconstruction, motor vehicle laws, and medical science such as orthopedics, radiology and post-trauma medical care. There are only a few attorneys who have focused their practices on this area of the law so you should immediately refer to the internet and carefully look at their credentials and experience before contacting him or her.

It is not a good idea to take the easy route and hire a lawyer simply because you learned about him from his TV or yellow-page advertising. Some lawyers who seek new clients in that manner do so because they need the volume of business an may not provide the attention your case requires.

When you find a lawyer who has the above credentials and you believe may have the skill to handle your case, you should immediately call him. If you are physically able to do so, you should immediately schedule an appointment with him. If you are incapacitated, most good personal injury lawyers will come to you because they understand your circumstances. An experienced trial lawyer knows that time is of the essence and that the above information is critical and must be collected in a timely manner.

Although we are told that a jury trial is a court proceeding in which laymen and women are presented the evidence and they are supposed to apply their common sense interpretation of the evidence to the instructions the judge gives them regarding the applicable law in arriving at a unanimous verdict, the lawyers and their witnesses will seize an opportunity to mislead or misguide the jury during the trial into returning a verdict for their side irrespective of the facts or the law.

The rules of evidence are the tools trial lawyers have available to protect against sneaky techniques occurring during a jury trial that are designed to mislead the trier of the facts, that is, the jury, into arriving at an unjust verdict.

Because questions asked and answers given by witnesses during a jury trial occur in a split second, a good trial lawyer must be keenly attuned to the strategy of his or her opposition’s tactics in order to prevent improper questions from being asked and to stop a witness from responding with an improper answer before the jury’s minds are contaminated with inadmissible and irrelevant testimony or evidence that would prevent a fair verdict and a just verdict.

When an attorney has a sense that the opponent is going to resort to such tactics during the trial, he or she can file what is called a Motion in Limine to obtain a ruling from the judge on that particular issue before the trial begins. If the judge grants the motion, the judge, in effect, will order the attorney who may be inclined to pull such a trick not to do so and if he does so after an Order in Limine is entered, this could result in the judge declaring a mistrial, that is, dismissing the jury and rescheduling the trial for another time.

The finest art of being a trial lawyer is displayed when he or she recognizes what his or her opponent is attempting to do before it occurs during the trial and he or she makes a concise objection to obtain a ruling from the judge before the jury hears or sees the impermissible testimony or evidence which would contaminate the jury’s minds with misleading and irrelevant matters.

In order for an objection to be successful during the trial, the trial lawyer must have in his arsenal an ability to recall all the rules of evidence so he can refer the judge to the specific rule that is applicable to prevent the jury from hearing the improper testimony or viewing the improper evidence. In some circumstances, it may be necessary for the trial lawyer who objects to recite a appellate court decision where an appellate court has ruled on that specific issue.

It is important that trial lawyers have an understanding of how appellate courts have ruled on particular matters in the past because trial judges are obliged to follow that precedent. The reliance of trial courts on appellate court decisions is the foundation of our legal system and is referred to as “the common law.”

An attorney who is intimately acquainted with the manner in which appellate courts arrive at their decisions has an advantage when it is necessary to make split second decisions during a jury trial. This is a reason why trial lawyers who handle appeals may have an advantage during jury trials.

Jack B. Nichols is a Civil Trial Lawyer that has been practicing law in Central Florida for more than four decades.