Not exact matches
I didn't say there was no inequality in the justice system, I said the media inflames
when they use 1 case as a litmus test, especially
when the system is stacked in
favor of defendants.
For example, on a scale
of 1 = Excellent and 5 = Very Poor, jurors gave defense attorneys, on average, a competence score
of 1.68
when they returned a verdict that was completely in
favor of the
defendant, 1.95
when they returned a split verdict, and 2.23
when they returned a verdict that was all in
favor of the state / plaintiff.
If the jurors rated similarly situated attorneys equally, as one might expect, the lines on the graphs would appear as a perfect «X.» One would expect the defense attorneys to be rated significantly higher than the plaintiff attorneys
when the juries return a verdict in
favor of the
defendant on all counts and the plaintiff attorneys to be rated significantly higher than the defense attorneys
when the juries return a verdict in
favor of the plaintiff on all counts.
He has frequently been the lone dissenter, particularly in criminal cases where he writes in
favor of the
defendant, even
when the arguments arrayed against his position are so formidable that his colleagues have joined the majority and moved on.
Therefore, the court found,
when the evidence was viewed in
favor of the plaintiff, there was a genuine issue
of material fact as to whether the
defendant driver failed to exercise ordinary care (the standard for Georgia ordinary negligence cases) in parking his truck in front
of his home and was therefore potentially negligent.
In most cases, it's a judgment in
favor of the plaintiff (the injured person)
when the
defendant (the tortfeasor / alleged wrongdoer) has failed to respond to a summons or appear in court.
A court
of appeals in California recently released an opinion in a personal injury lawsuit that reversed a jury verdict in
favor of a plaintiff who sustained injuries
when he was struck by a vehicle being driven by an employee
of the
defendant as he returned from work.
I suppose there could be valid reasons why 4 out
of every 5 jury verdicts go in
favor of the doctor or hospital — maybe the strongest cases are all being settled before trial, leaving only the weakest cases behind — but it's hard to say that with a straight face
when those figures mean that malpractice
defendants have better odds winning in a courtroom than the odds a casino has winning its own games.