1

Reaction to Jury Participation

On Thursday, April 15th, I served as a member of the jury for a
mock trial case regarding a traffic accident the night of August 1st,
2012 that resulted in the death of Charles Engels. Charles was driving
from work on that night, when John Garvey, who was coming from the
opposite direction, lost control of his vehicle and flew over the median
of the street, crashing into Charles car and instantly killing him. The
plaintiff counsel argued that Garvey owed Charles wife and family for
the damages caused by this sudden death, claiming that at the time of
the crash he was drunk and driving at a dangerously fast speed.
However, the defense counsel argued that there is lack of sufficient
proof that Garvey was drunk, and also that the reason for the accident
was because of a mechanical malfunction with the tire rod of his car
that caused him to lose control. The arguments are very contradicting,
so I was very curious to see the way in which the attorneys would
present their case.
In their opening statements, the opposing sides each used a
narrative technique in order to highlight specific factual discoveries
surrounding the case that would help in an attempt to convince us jury
members that their story was legitimate. From the start, the plaintiffs
painted the picture of Garvey, who was a lawyer himself, arriving at
the bar at 7:30 that night with his co-workers and in a celebratory
mood after just winning a big case and racking up a $225 tab before

2
making the decision to drunkenly drive. The defense countered this by
stating that this expensive tab was because he was buying drinks for
everyone at his table as well as a round for the entire bar. The defense
also introduced the theory that Garveys tire rod may have been
tampered with a few days before when a former client of his, with
whom he had a sour relationship, did a maintenance check on his car.
After the opening statements, each side then presented the court
with testimonial and physical evidence to strengthen their arguments.
As we learned in lecture, evidence is any knowable fact or group of
facts considered with a view to its being offered before a legal
tribunal for the purpose of producing a persuasion, positive or
negative as to the truth of a proposition, (Wigmore, Evidence, 3rd
edition 1940). Both sides had two witnesses with them to be
examined. The plaintiffs brought forth Nelly Olsen, a waitress who was
working at the bar Garvey was driving home from. Olsen
acknowledged she saw Garvey 2-3 times a week at the bar, and that
the night of the crash she believed that he was drunk, stating he had
glossy eyes and slurred speech. The plaintiffs then presented her with
a copy of Garveys tab from that night and asked her to confirm that it
was his, which she did. Olsen then stated that she offered to drive
Garvey home but he refused. The defense then conducted a cross
examination, meaning they attempted to test the witnesss
credibility and information given during the direct examination. During

3
this process, Olsen confirmed that Garvey did not consume all of the
beverages he purchased. She also acknowledged that her and Garvey
had a brief fling a few months prior to that night that was broken off
by Garvey, after which the defense attempted to suggest that she
might have had an alternative reason for testifying. It is important to
note that the plaintiffs had three objections on the grounds of
speculation during this cross-examination that were sustained by the
judge.
The next witness presented by the plaintiffs was Detective
Morgan Earp, the lead detective on the wreck who specialized in
investigating traffic accidents. They established his credibility as an
expert witness. Earp stated that Garvey had to have been going
substantially faster than the speed limit in order to go airborne, and
also noted that at the scene there were no skid marks or apparent
attempts to brake by Garvey. Earp then explained to the jury the
diagram of the accident that he made the night of the wreck. Along
with this physical evidence, the plaintiffs presented Garveys BAC test
that was conducted 3 hours after the wreck at 2:45 AM (He could not
conduct one immediately after the wreck because Garvey was
unconscious and unable to give consent). The results from this test
showed that Garveys BAC level at 2:45 was 0.06, which is just 0.02
under the legal limit. When the defense cross examined, the
presented Earp and the jury with a picture of the large pothole that

4
they believed caused Garveys tire rod to break. Earp acknowledged
that the pothole contributed to the crash, however, he noted that when
he had technicians examine the broken tire rod a few weeks later; they
concluded that the broken tire rod would not have affected Garveys
ability to brake. The defense then pointed out Earps failure to consult
with a physicist to calculate the speed of the car, so there was a lack of
evidence that he was actually speeding.
Next, the defense brought forth Mike Rover, an expert in automaintenance who regularly works on Garveys car in his shop. When
Rover was presented with a picture of the broken tire rod from the car
that was now stored at his shop, he confirmed that it was indeed from
Garveys 1960s Jaguar as it is the only model he has seen shop. Rover
also explained a diagram of how a tire rod works to the jury so that we
were able to understand how Garvey would have lost control. The jury
was also shown a receipt from Garveys maintenance check up a few
days before the accident that was filled out by Will Wilder and the
description read, rust appearing on some parts of undercarriage.
Lastly, Rover confirmed for the witness that Wilder and Garvey had a
bad relationship that stemmed from the past, but also stated that
Wilder was his best employee. When the plaintiffs cross-examined,
Rover admitted that Garvey was very upset with him after letting
Wilder work on his car, claiming he would put him out of business,
yet Garvey still went to Rovers auto-shop regularly after the accident

5
and is in possession of the tire rod that supposedly broke during the
crash. Rover claimed he did not tamper with any part of the tire rod.
Lastly, Garvey himself stepped forward as the last witness for the
defense. In his testimony, he admitted that he did indeed have a $225
tab at the bar the night of the accident, however, he claimed that he
himself only had 3 drinks in the 4 hours he was there. He says he felt
physically fine when he left, and the appearance of being intoxicated
that Olsen claimed she saw in him was likely due to the fact that he
was tired after working long hours on the case he won that day. In
regards to the accident, he said once he hit the pothole and lost control
of his steering, he had a second maximum to react, which is why he
did not brake as Detective Earp claimed he should have. Lastly he said
he claimed that the cuts in his tire rod were too precise to be done
solely by hitting the pothole, and that he truly believes it was
tampered with likely by Wilder who told Garvey he would pay after
their lawyer-client relationship went sour. In the plaintiffs crossexamination, they attempted to display Garvey as immoral by
mentioning his dismissal from his previous place of work due to
passing bad checks. The plaintiffs also noted that the technicians that
Earp had examine the tire rod said there was no conclusive evidence
as to whether the tire rod was cut before or during the accident.
As a jury member in this trial, there were a few different factors
that most heavily influenced my position. The first of these was each

6
partys use of expert opinion. As stated in FRE Rule 702 If scientific,
technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to
understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness
qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or
education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.
Both parties successfully used an expert as one of their witnesses, the
plaintiffs with Detective Earp and the defense with Mike Rover.
However, I thought that the plaintiffs had a more credible and higher
quality expert opinion compared to the defense. Rover would be
considered a hostile witness to the plaintiffs, meaning he was in favor
of a victory for the defense. It was said that Rover and Garvey had
been friends since they were young, meaning that although Rover is
very knowledgeable in the field automobile repair and functioning, his
personal relationship with Garvey could have easily influenced his
opinion. Is it true that Earp would also be considered a hostile witness
to the defense, as he was in favor of a victory for the plaintiffs,
however, his expert opinion was based on far more conclusive facts,
and importantly considered the unbiased opinions of the technicians he
hired to examine Garveys tire rod. Going along with this, the evidence
for the plaintiffs case was much more concrete. All of the facts they
presented seemingly fit together. As the defense pointed out, Olsens
claiming that Garvey was intoxicated could not be the sole validation
for that fact, however, the results from the BAC test showing that

7
Garveys BAC was at 0.06 three full hours after the accident show that
Olsen was very likely correct. Similarly, Earps failure to have a
physicist determine the actual speed Garvey was driving at the time of
the accident could not be the only grounds for sufficient evidence of
that fact, but his 13 years of specializing in traffic accidents and
knowing that a car cannot get airborne while going the speed limit on
that road adds credibility to that fact as well. Meanwhile, the evidence
of the defense was largely based on speculation or things that could
not necessarily be proven, such as the fact that the tire rod had been
tampered with or that Garvey had only consumed 3 drinks in his time
at the bar. These are both things that cannot be proven with a degree
of certainty and they heavily contradict the evidence of the plaintiffs
case that is far more certain.
All of the attorneys and witnesses made efforts to have their
credibility in regards to the case known. At the beginning of each
examination, the attorneys made sure to question the witnesses on
these aspects in order for the jury to understand that their opinions
were relevant. Once again, I thought the plaintiffs did a better job of
this, as they picked individuals who were present the night of the
accident, as opposed to Rover who was not. Also, much of the
defenses questioning was based on supposition, such as the Wilder
sabotage conspiracy theory or the previously mentioned questioning of

8
Ms. Olsen that had 3 sustained objections by the plaintiffs, which I
thought made their argument weaker.
In their closing arguments, the plaintiff attorneys highlighted to
us jury members the importance of using the reasonable inference
and solid evidence when determining our verdict, which I believed was
the logical thing to do in this case. This statement must have also
stuck out to the other members of the jury, because when we
convened to determine a verdict, we were all in agreement that the
plaintiffs case was much stronger, and therefore Garvey was guilty of
the crime he committed. I believe this trial was very successful at
solving the dispute between the Engels family and John Garvey as the
evidence was clearly far more in favor of one side over the other.