0liverBoliverButt t1_isr9dqn wrote on October 18, 2022 at 2:48 AM

Reply to comment by CasualCantaloupe in guide to voting on referendums by UlisesLima9

You are correct on all fronts- with some caveats.

In my experience, juries don’t respond as well to dropping a stack of medical records in front of them, and while 10-104 is still available, the impression is seriously muted as opposed to a judge, used to seeing and reviewing meds. You don’t need an expert but having one there makes a better impression.

District Courts, while seriously backed up after the pandemic, are still way faster than Circuit. And while the vast majority of cases settle, sometimes it takes a looming trial date to get the parties to talk.

The right to a jury is important, but so is the right to a remedy for harms done. And when insurance companies plead jury trials in bad faith as a delaying tactic, nobody’s rights are served.

CasualCantaloupe t1_isrl2e4 wrote on October 18, 2022 at 4:32 AM

Is it bad faith to exercise a right so important that it makes it into the Constitution three times? Yes, the insurance company calls the shots on litigation strategy but when the actual trial starts, the defendant is the one facing a jury of their peers, not State Farm.

Justice delayed is justice denied, sure, but it's a question of some months we're talking about here between district and circuit. Where are we to draw the line to say it is proper to abrogate the defendant's rights in the interest of swift resolution for the plaintiff?

I'm genuinely unsure about how I'll vote on this initiative. I appreciate your sharing from you perspective but there are other things to consider for people who do not have a business interest (or have an opposing business interest) in the matter.