How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask jamest Your Own Question
jamest
jamest, Private Investigator
Category: Criminal Law
Satisfied Customers: 372
Experience:  Investigator of criminal law cases, especially Florida law. Work with retailers, others, consultant
7502674
Type Your Criminal Law Question Here...
jamest is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

Should the loser of a civil case be required to pay for ...

Resolved Question:

Should the loser of a civil case be required to pay for jurors fees for half a day if they didn't service on the jury but were just there for jury selection?
Submitted: 8 years ago.
Category: Criminal Law
Expert:  jamest replied 8 years ago.
The answer to your question is a matter of opinion, not on what the law says. There is no provision for such payment as of now. Do you mean as of now should the losing party pay or are you asking a hypothetical question? There is no provision for it, and weather or not there should be a provision for it is a matter of opinion. Operating under the current system, I would, if it were up to me, only make such a policy if the suit is deemed to be frivolous or blatantly wrong. This is similar to how many jurisdictions, including the federal government deal with legal fees. If someone files a blatantly frivolous lawsuit, the judge can order the losing party to pay the legal fees of the prevailing party, since the case was frivolous and a waste of the courts time. Under our current system I would not make a bright line rule for payment of jurors who are dismissed. The legal process is already expensive enough, tacking that onto the bill would raise the already high cost of representation. This may deter fraudulent lawsuits, however it could just as easily deter valid lawsuits. If there is a genuine question of fact for which a jury can be enpanaled to determine the facts of the case. But for arguments sake, say you had the same jury that sat in the OJ Simpson criminal case, just in a civil court. This would make a prudent person question weather it is worth taking a case to trial over the risk that if thy lose, for any reason they not only lost the case but now must pay thousands of dollars to jurors who are ultimately dismissed, you can have a solid air tight case, and the jury could have the combined IQ of 29, but under the scenario you mentioned, it would apply to any losing party, and i think after OJ, XXXXX XXXXX, XXXXX blake, William Kennedy smith, ect From those cases we know jurors sometimes get it wrong. If the case is frivolous or reticules, then paying the jurors would be a deterrent to filing these lawsuits, but in a case where there is a real factual basis we do not want to penalize the plaintiff due to an incompetent jury. Usually in a criminal or civil case, the defending party usually attempts to get a jury full of people of low intelligence, it does not always work, but it is certainly something they would desire.
Customer: replied 8 years ago.
We were in court for a case concerning a well which by the plaintiff's own admission was functioning well with 5 people on it. We believe the new owner had problems because the tenant moved more people in with her and had a new baby which put a strain on the system. The plaintiff decided to put in a second well to furnish water to this property. We lost because of platant lies by the tenant. We were ordered to pay for 44 jurors for 1/2 days service. They were only there for selection. Only 9 jururs served for a two day trial were wre ordered to pay them also for two days they served. Does not seem fair to pay for jurors who are only there for the selection process and don't actually serve. What is your opinion????
Expert:  jamest replied 8 years ago.
My opinion is that this is unfair. I do not think the loser should be required to pay for juror service. The jury system is a part of our criminal and civil justice system. Personally I believe the entire jury system is archaic, inefficient and it has a very poor track record, That is just my opinion, that is not law, that is not the state of the law and I do not see that changing any time soon. So yes I do think it is unfair for you to be required to pay for any juror fees because you did not request a jury, nor instigate the litigation, you are a victim of the jury system because they believes a lie. That said that is all opinion and states nothing about the law. If the law provides for it, there is nothing you or I can do, you can appeal the case to a higher court, and perhaps obtain a better result, but that depends on the details of the case.
jamest and 4 other Criminal Law Specialists are ready to help you

Related Criminal Law Questions