Civil Jury Trial Report

On Monday, March 21 2016, I attended a civil jury trial at the Bergen County Justice center located on 10 Main Street in Hackensack, New Jersey. The name of the case was Russy vs. Hackensack University Medical Center. The docket number was 003606. The plaintiff was Vanessa Russy, her attorney was Michael J. Maggiano and the defendant’s attorney was Louis A. Ruprecht. The judge was Rachelle L. Harz. The plaintiff, Vanessa Russy was seeking damages from the defendant, her former obstetrician-gynecologist, for alleged malpractice that reportedly took place on June 20, 2011. Vanessa Russy has claimed that due to malpractice completed by the defendant during her C- section she can no longer work. Before Mrs. Russy’s C-section, she was employed
by a school district where she worked with hard of hearing children, the main task of her job consisted of typing for the students who were hard of hearing so they could read what the teacher was saying. Due to her alleged injury, Mrs. Russy claims that when she types her fingers go numb and for that reason she is incapable of working. Professor Kristin K. Kucsma, a senior economist for Sobel Tinari Economics group, was the expert witness. The defendant had an expert witness, whom was a medical doctor, however, I did not get to hear him testify because after the second break I left. The outside of the courthouse was very pleasing to the eye.
I was a bit intimated walking in due to how big the courthouse looked, but once I arrived, I went to the help desk and a police officer kindly directed me to the room I was looking for. I was a bit surprised when I walked into the courtroom regarding its size. I expected to be a lot bigger due to the media’s representation of courtrooms on TV shows and movies. The courtroom was very plan looking, but neat. When I first arrived only a few people were present and court was not yet in session. Within fifteen minutes of me arriving, the judge, Rachelle L. Harz, walked in and asked if everyone was ready, however, a juror had not yet arrived, and it took approximately ten more minutes for the juror to arrive, and then court was in session. While waiting for the juror to arrive, the plaintiff’s attorney approached me and he was very pleasant, he asked me what school I attended, what my major was and if I am considering law school. He also pointed out that Montclair State University has a very good paralegal program, which is something that I have been
researching. The judge, Rachelle L.
Harz, appeared to be a Caucasian female in her late fifties. The plaintiff’s attorney, Michael J. Maggiano, appeared to be a Caucasian male in his sixties. The defendant’s attorney, Louis A. Ruprecht, appeared to be a Caucasian male in his sixties. The plaintiff, Vanessa Russy, is thirty-nine years old and appeared to be a Caucasian female. The defendant appeared to be a Caucasian male in his mid-forties. The plaintiff’s expert witness, Professor Kristin K. Kucsma, appeared to be a Caucasian female in her mid to late forties. The plaintiff’s expert witness appeared to be a Caucasian male in his sixties. Professor Kristin K.
Kucsma The Jury consisted of eight jurors, six male and two female. The following descriptions of each juror are simply my personal perception, and for that reason the precision of each description may not be entirely accurate. I have assigned the jurors a number to give a description of each. Juror number one was a Caucasian female in her twenties. Juror number two was a Caucasian female in her sixties. Juror number three was a Hispanic male in his twenties. Juror number four was an Asian male in his thirties. Juror number five was Caucasian male in his late fifties. Juror number six was a Caucasian male in his early fifties. Juror number seven was a Caucasian male in his forties. Juror number eight was a Caucasian male in his late forties. Six out of the eight jurors did not appear to be interested in the trial, it appeared as if they were bothered with the entire experience, and just wanted to get their duty over with. Their lack of interest was honestly a bit concerning. One juror appeared to be sleeping within minutes of the court being in session. However, I did notice that a few jurors were taking notes occasionally throughout the trial. The judge, Rachelle L. Harz, had a serious, but respectable, demeanor toward the attorney and witnesses. She appeared to be respectable towards the jury, and she also smiled at them a few times during the trial. It was difficult to observe the conduct of the plaintiff and the defendant as they were sitting with their backs facing my view. In between the break, they both appeared to be content. I was expecting the defendant to be a bit stressed out, however, appeared to be calm as he walked by and even smiled when we made eye contact.
The expert witness, actually said “To be made whole.” A reference I remember being discussed in class regarding civil matters.
Opinion
I honestly loved the court room experience, however, that is not surprising as I am fascinated by law and love watching cases on TV and YouTube. Yet, actually being in the courtroom was a completely different experience, I found it really exciting, and plan on attending another jury trail again, specifically a criminal trial. I was disappointed with the way the majority of the jury seemed to lack interest. Granted, the case itself did not appear to be a very exciting one, and it is safe to say everyone on the Jury had to make personal sacrifices to be a juror, but although the case does not reflect them directly, the jury’s decision will certainly greatly affect the plaintiff, Mrs. Russy and the defendant, her former obstetrician-gynecologist. If one of the jurors happen to be in either the plaintiff or defendants shoes I am certain they would be a bit nervous about the lack of interest the jury seemed to be portraying. I may be overanalyzing their demeanor, but the fact that one juror appeared to be sleeping within two minutes of the trial was tremendously concerning. If I was the plaintiff or defendants attorney, I would find it hard to not speak up considering the fate of my client rests on a group of eight individuals, and one was sleeping. The role of the jury holds extreme importance as they ultimately decide the fate of both parties involved. As we have learned in class, each individual juror can ultimately decide if the witness is creditable, which is why I found it so problematic that the vast majority of the jury did not seem to be giving the plaintiff’s expert witness, Kristin K. Kucsma, their complete attention when she was testifying. I would imagine that in criminal cases, jurors may be more inclined to give their undivided attention to the trail. Regardless, it is my personal belief that many jurors do not realize how important their job truly is. My overall impression of the judge was pleasant, I admired the respect she showed to the plaintiff, the defendant, both attorney’s and the jury. I also admired both attorneys, as it was very clear they had done their job efficiently for the trial, as they both appeared to be knowledgeable and showed respect to the judge, the jury, each other, and the parties. My overall impression of the trial itself was pleasant. Although, a criminal trial, would have been more exciting, the fact is the verdict will greatly impact both the plaintiff and the defendant. I believe the Jury system adequately preserves and protects the rights afforded to citizens in the Constitution. However, there is always room for improvement. As noted above, it is my belief that many jurors do not realize how important their job truly is, and for that reason, I believe aside from a video being shown to them, they should be personally sat down with one and one and be informed on why their attention to the case, its details, and the witnesses will matter. If they truly do not seem to grasp that concept, I do not believe they should be able to serve on a jury. Apart from the jury system, I believe that our current criminal justice system is in need of improvement. For example, the rights of citizens are protected by the constitution, but due to the fact that we live in a capitalist society, and attorney’s set their own fees it would be unreasonable to assume that every individual is represented equally. It is my personal belief that if an extremely wealthy individual is accused of a crime and have the resources to spend on hiring an accomplished well known attorney and trial and jury consultants their chances at being convicted decrease. Yet, what would the alternative be? It is unreasonable, and may cause even more harm if attorney’s were not able to set their own fees as it would degrade the occupation and ultimately result in many attorney’s providing the bare minimum due to the fact that the motivation every human being is personal gain. I would also expect that law school admissions would completely drop as investing one’s time and money in law school is an extreme sacrifice, and without reasonable reward the occupation would fall apart. Therefore, I do not see a reasonable alternative, but I certainly do believe that some Americans due to their socioeconomic status certainly have the upper hand when it comes to particular cases. I also do not agree with double jeopardy. How can we truly say that justice is served if an individual is tried and found not guilty for murder, and in time a video surfaces of the murder being committed? If actual proof surfaces after the verdict, another trial should be mandatory.