Law and Fact at Trial
Factual Uncertainty
Burden of Proof
i. Burden of Production: Burden of going forward, initially producing evidence (usually on P)
ii. Burden of Persuasion: Party that must ultimately persuade the fact finder of the truth of the issue in a civil case.
1. The burdens do not always fall on the same party. Usually, the plaintiff must meet the burden of production in order for the trial to even occur, and then he must meet the burden of persuasion to win the trial. This is not always the case. Some situations have a burden of production or persuasion on the defendant
2. The party with the burden must convince the jury that their side of the story is more probably true than false
Preponderance of the Evidence
i. The preponderance of evidence means it is more probably true than false.
1. This is not a direct mathematical formula
ii. Formulas that asses mathematical probabilities are not always trustworthy because there could be large amounts of error inherent in them
Evaluating Witnesses
i. When evaluating witnesses, you want to look for reasons why one witness may be more correct or credible than the other
1. Do they have a reason to lie?
a. Relationship with P or D
2. How long ago was the incident
3. Which was in a better position to view
Validity of Studies and Statistics
i. Studies and statistics are not facts.
ii. In assessing them you must look at who performed the study, and for what purpose.
iii. Samples and studies predict for certain populations, they are not always applicable
iv. What sources of error might be inherent in the study
Why All or Nothing?
i. An all or nothing system encourages the parties to settle. It also encourages the parties to be better prepared, so there wont be as many mistakes
ii. It also makes the jury take in more seriously
Jury’s Fact Input
i. Jury Misconduct/Mansfield Rule/Rule 606b: Jury misconduct can be the basis for a new trial or appeal. But – most often, jury misconduct is not apparent.
What constitutes jury misconduct?
i. Clear and Easy Example: Jury doesn’t answer voir dire questions truthfully (voir dire is the initial jury questioning to decide whether there’s conflict of interest or personal knowledge about a case)
ii. More difficult is what occurs at deliberation process à General v. Specific Knowledge
1. Most common reason for Jury Misconduct
2. Texas Employers’ v. Price: Jury member used his own specific knowledge regarding union employment and D’s permanent inability to find work due to his back injury. Judge held that it wasn’t proper for juror to relate personal experience. We want jurors to use their general knowledge and experience, but not specific personal experience because counsel doesn’t have a chance to refute/verify.
3. How should the line between general/specific knowledge be drawn? The more specific and particularized the information, the more likely it will be deemed new evidence and therefore inappropriate because it wasn’t received in open court.
jurors to be able to make decisions without being influenced. This way they do not have to worry about someone finding out what they said
3. Benefits
a. Not a scientific process, no way of ensuring they’re operating properly.
b. Result of impeaching doesn’t ensure a more just decision.
c. We don’t want to know what they’re doing anyways.
4. Jury Nullification
a. Sometimes jurors ignore the law and make decisions based on what they think is fair. This is known as juror nullification. Sometimes we want this. The law is very rigid, it is sometimes helpful to have the human aspect of a jury. But this is an example of why we do not want jurors to tell us what they do.
b. Two examples of situations where we might want juror nullification are situations from the Price case
i. He’ll never get another job, and since the employer is responsible for his injuries, we should ignore the law and give him full recovery
ii. He must be a wimp. We could work through the pain. Ignore the law, don’t let him recover
iii. In these situations, we would not want to know this was their thought process
Weaknesses: Allows many tainted verdicts to remain undisturbed.
