How the jury decided the lead paint manufacturers were liable
The public, lawyers and jurors see jurors as passive vessels for each sides stories and evidence. The recent jury verdict against lead paint manufacturers explodes that myth.
Today's edition of the New York Times(free subscription required)offers a peek into how the jurors reached their decision and how the tactics used by the defense lawyers contributed to the outcome.
The jury deliberated several weeks. They initially split 4-2 in favor of the defendant paint manufactures. Two jurors, however, hung tough and eventually persuaded the others to their point of view.
The defendants were so confident they did not call a single witness after the state rested its case. Predictably the defense attorneys who made this tactical call blamed everyone...but themselves. But as the article reports, "behind the scenes, several other factors may have played a role: the courtroom-strategy battles among the defense lawyers, for instance, and their hubris from never having lost a lawsuit before. Three of the six jurors interviewed for this article, for example, said they had been surprised and disappointed that the defense did not offer any witnesses to rebut the state's central allegation: that simply by having been in the business of making lead-based paint, companies contributed to what is now a pervasive public nuisance. 'They could have brought their own witnesses up there," the jury's foreman, Gerald Lenau, said. 'The fact is, the person you hear last does leave a lasting impression, but maybe they couldn't dispute anything.'"