Professor Bainbridge, who is much better at this than I am, has this interesting article about the jury system in light of the Vioxx verdict.
As an attorney engaged primarily in civil litigation, I’ve long had my doubts about the jury system. I’d much rather have my client’s lease interpreted by a judge trained in the law than by a jury made up of people who know nothing about the law. The $ 229 million verdict against Merck in the Vioxx case in Texas does nothing enhance my faith in the jury system.
A few choice quotes:
Jurors who voted against Merck said much of the science sailed right over their heads. “Whenever Merck was up there, it was like wah, wah, wah,” said juror John Ostrom, imitating the sounds Charlie Brown’s teacher makes in the television cartoon. “We didn’t know what the heck they were talking about.”
One juror, Ms. Blas, had written in her questionnaire that she loves the Oprah Winfrey show and tapes it. “This jury believes they’re going to get on Oprah,” Ms. Blue told Mr. Lanier. “They only get on Oprah if they vote for the plaintiff.”
… [juror] Ostrom, 49, who has a business remodeling homes, was also disturbed that former Merck Chief Executive Raymond Gilmartin and another top Merck official gave videotaped testimony but weren’t in the courtroom. “The big guys didn’t show up,” said Mr. Ostrom. “That didn’t sit well with me. Most definitely an admission of guilt.”
Does anyone really believe that the jury that decided this case really understood the science behind it ?
Update: More about this stupid verdict at Asymmetrical Information
