War Chandler!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4025513&forum_id=2#36423211)

Maricopa County (Phoenix) isn't as big as LA, but it still has over 4 million people, and the state courts work just fine.

I don't see what's so hard about assigning a judge at the beginning of a case and later telling people where the trial will be months in advance.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4025513&forum_id=2#36435080)

https://bit.ly/2LbMetT

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4025513&forum_id=2#36435090)

Not every person is right for every case. I represent injured people, so I probably would not be right for a case involving negligence.

This case involves an automobile accident which occurred on November 30, . The defendant has already admitted fault—that she’s responsible—so we just need to hold her accountable—the amount of damages that is appropriate

Knowing what the case is about, do any pf you feel this is just not the case for you to serve as a juror?

The trial system exists to protect the rights of individuals. One of those rights s to be free from injuries caused by the negligence of others. The only way to protect and enforce that right is by compensation w a monetary amount.

Are each of you prepared to protect that right, in this case, by awarding money damages to - if you find she was injured by - negligence? 20. We will present evidence of xx injuries and damages. Is there anyone on the panel who would be unwilling to grant damages for pain and suffering, or would be uncomfortable doing so? Some people lean toward granting damages for pain and suffering. Some people feel that damages should be granted only for things like medical bills and costs. Are you more on the side of granting damages for pain and suffering, or are you more on the side of setting pain and suffering aside?

Do you understand that pain and suffering is not profit. It is compensation the law allows for pain and suffering in a personal injury case like this?

Do you have some personal belief that will not allow you to follow the law and award money damages for pain and suffering?

Do you have some personal belief that will not allow you to follow the law and award money damages for pain and suffering?

The judge will at the conclusion f the case, read out instructions to you, that is effectively the law of the case.

Does anyone here feel they cannot or will not follow the law concerning pain and suffering ?

Can I get a commitment from you now, from each of you—that if you do find, by the greater weight of the evidence, that xx has suffered a great deal of pain as a result of this accident—do all of you promise me now that you will follow the law, and award her fair compensation for those injuries?

Is it one to nothing against me? Will I have an extra burden of proof?

there are more of course but hit this shit HARD on pain and suffering. then argue the jury instructions on pain and suffering and burden of proof on pain and suffering hard as fuck in closing.

I also like to argue that it's "A proximate cause" not "THE proximate cause"

LOTS MORE BESIDES, obv.

Watch out for leaders. Realtors are good wheeler dealers if they like you. Watch out for nurses because they'll call your bullshit. watch out for people in prior accidents who weren't hurt no big deal. Watch out for money men as they wont poay out much.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4025513&forum_id=2#36453200)

I have allergies--I spend all spring w headaches and sneezing. What makes a flower bloom? It's the warmth, the increased daylight, some added rain--each of these things is A Proximate Cause. There's no ONE prximate cause to many things in life--there are MANY Proximate causes. The law in its wisdom doesn't ask us to sort out all the Proximate Causes of the accident--all we have to do is ask whether the defendant breaking the rule of safety was A Proximate Cause of the plaintiff's injuries.

Or that I dunno just get the point across.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4025513&forum_id=2#36453753)

You need to be ready to deflate this--deflate it early--out of the box. "Sure defense counsel agrees the defendant is liable, frames it as "taking responsibility" (or stips to specials) or what have you. But, in this case--what else could they do? the liability is so clear. What they could do is force ms plaintiff to come in here into court and share with a roomful of strangers all the intimate ways in which this accident has caused her trouble and pain."

Be prepared for this shit.

They like to paint you as a money grubber in closing right after you say your number.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4025513&forum_id=2#36454963)