Running head: JURY DUTY
Moral Reasoning Essay: Ethical Dilemma of Jury Duty
Frederick R. Tench
Virginia Commonwealth University
1

Running head: JURY DUTY
Moral Reasoning Essay: Ethical Dilemma of Jury Duty
2
Statement of Issue
Several years ago, I served as a juror on a circuit court personal injury case. The plaintiff was suing a big box store for injuries sustained in a fall over a store display. The plaintiff suffered a broken collarbone, a dislocated elbow, and a strained wrist on her right side. She contended the display was dangerous because it was not properly set up and was protruding into customers’ walk way. The defendant countered by saying that the display was compliant with
ADA regulations, was clearly marked, and was safe. The plaintiff sought a large settlement to cover medical expenses and to replace lost wages. She was also seeking compensation for pain and suffering. Furthermore, the plaintiff stated that because of her injuries she was no longer able to continue in her role as primary caregiver for her husband who had cancer and was undergoing chemotherapy and radiation. If awarded a settlement, the plaintiff pledged to use a large part of the money to pay for another caregiver for her husband. Both the plaintiff and her husband were in their 60s.
The defendant agreed that the plaintiff was in a difficult situation. However, the defendant did not feel it should be penalized or held responsible for the plaintiff’s bills because the defendant was not guilty. The defendant countered that it was the plaintiff’s own negligence that caused her to fall – not failure on the defendant’s part to comply with federal, state, and local display guidelines. The defendant stated that it had taken every precaution required by law and very clearly marked the display area. According to the defendant, the plaintiff was looking backward and walking forward when she fell over the display. The defendant’s position was that if the plaintiff had been paying attention and behaving properly, the accident would not have happened. Lastly, the defendant claimed that if the court wrongly decided for the plaintiff the defendant would be open to regular frivolous and expensive lawsuits.
Before the trial began, the jury received a briefing from the judge about jury behavior, what to look for in testimony, and how to come to a verdict. As the trial progressed, it was clear to us jurors that the plaintiff’s attorney had not proven her case. He appeared unprepared, and frankly, disinterested. The plaintiff’s lawyer frequently looked at his notes, stuttered over his questions, and rarely made a cogent point. In short, he had put on a very weak case. In contrast, the defendant’s lawyer was very prepared, was aggressive in his questioning and crossexamination, and was engaged in every step of the process. He offset every point made by the defendant’s attorney and proved beyond a doubt that the store had complied in both spirit and letter to the law. He was logical and appeared to be legally correct in his conduct of the defense.
At the same time, he was sensitive to the plaintiff and was kind in his questions to her. In my mind, he had easily won the case and convincingly proven that there had been neither fault nor liability on the part of the defendant. Likewise, the other jurors also felt that the defendant was not guilty of the charges. Clearly, the plaintiff had fallen over the display because of her own carelessness – not by any negligence on the part of the defendant.
After several witnesses, the judge abruptly stopped the court proceedings and instructed the jury to report to the jury room. In the jury room, we discussed the case despite instructions to not do so from the judge. To a person, we unanimously believed the defendant was not guilty and had been entirely compliant with all regulations regarding display set-up and safety.
However, what surprised me was that despite our consensus about the defendant’s innocence,

Running head: JURY DUTY about half of the jurors wanted to give the plaintiff “something” because of what she had been through, the sad circumstances of her life, and the unsteady performance of her attorney. Their thinking was that the “big box” store had deep pockets and could afford a “little something.”
Several jurors truly thought the right thing was to “help out that poor lady and her husband” despite the defendant’s innocence.
3
After twenty minutes of jury room sequestration, the judge brought us back to the courtroom. He immediately announced that he would be deciding the case, thanked us for our time and service to the community, and dismissed us. In retrospect, I am glad the judge released us so we did not have to deliberate the decision. Despite my conviction about the defendant’s innocence, my conscience might have bothered me if I had not agreed to reward the plaintiff with a cash settlement.
My moral dilemma in this situation was simple yet complex: make the right decision based on the legal facts of the case no matter the consequences or be altruistic and agree to award the defendant a settlement that she is not entitled to receive because of her personal circumstances, a compassion to help, and a desire to make justice fair because of her ineffective legal representation.
Analysis of Dilemma
Analysis
In my moral dilemma, I was confronted with having to decide whether to do the right thing or the nice thing – to choose between justice and mercy. As described above, the defendant was plainly not guilty of the alleged charges. At the same time, the plaintiff was in a very difficult predicament. The situation was compounded by the fact that the quality of representation was so uneven. On the surface, it appeared things might be different for the plaintiff if the plaintiff had a better prepared and more skillful attorney. Understanding the reasons for the plaintiff’s poor legal representation would have helped me better process the moral dilemma. Could it have been that her attorney did not think there was much of a case?
Could it have been that the defendant’s situation was not as heart-wrenching as it appeared to be?
Had the defendant been counseled to drop the case but insisted on pursuing it? And if so why?
Was the plaintiff counting on a sympathetic jury awarding her a settlement even though the facts

Running head: JURY DUTY did not warrant such an action? In trying to answer these questions, a number of ethical values
4 warranted examination.
Among those values were compassion, equity, fairness, integrity, justice, and responsibility. What was difficult for me as a juror was to remain balanced, ethical, and impartial while making decisions that had immense impact on litigants and their lives. For whom should I have shown compassion - the plaintiff who was in immediate need or the defendant who was not guilty? In fairness, I could not award the plaintiff anything because the plaintiff was truly at fault. Unquestionably, the plaintiff had a momentary lapse of attention and suffered a depilating injury – maybe the store should have taken more responsibility for the accident than I thought at first consideration. Nevertheless, as a responsible citizen, I had a duty to be equitable and just.
As a juror, my goal was to make the right decision based on the facts. For me, the most important value in that judicial manner was to display integrity. In short, I was guided by the categorical imperative to do what is “right no matter the consequences” (Johnson, 2012, p. 158). As a juror it was my duty to the community, the court, and the litigants to do so.
Prior to coming to this decision, I made several assumptions. I assumed that the facts presented in the case were accurate, comprehensive, and truthful. I also expected the attorneys representing the involved parties to have their clients’ best interests at heart and to have done their best to research, to prepare, and to represent them. Moreover, it was my understanding that as a juror I was expected to make an informed and fair decision based only on the facts of the case, judicial instructions, legal regulations, and case law. In addition, I presumed that my fellow jurors were also committed to making reasonable and studied decisions in the case. My last assumption was that our verdict would be final and binding.

Running head: JURY DUTY
With these assumptions in mind, I contemplated several verdict options. For one, I could
5 have agreed with several of the jurors and voted to give an award to the plaintiff. The implications of this altruistic course of action were multifaceted. Although the defendant would suffer some monetary loss, it would not be catastrophic because the defendant was a large conglomerate that had significant financial resources to cover these kinds of punitive rulings.
Furthermore, the plaintiff would have greatly benefited financially in many ways: medical bills could have been paid and money would have been available not only for herself but also for her husband’s care while she recuperated from her injuries. In contrast, it would not have been compassionate for the defendant. The defendant would have been required to pay a substantial amount of money in damages. Moreover, the plaintiff might have continued to purse more legal actions. Lastly, others in similar situations would possibly be emboldened to file claims against the defendant.
A second option was to vote the defendant not guilty, and then in all probability, defend that vote against protests from several other jurists. This decision would have been the most straightforward and easiest to defend because it was based solely on the facts of the case. In my opinion, the defendant did not commit a crime according to applicable law and should have been declared innocent of all charges. By doing so, it absolved the company of any wrong doing, prevented it from incurring possible higher insurance costs, and deterred future possible frivolous law suits. However, a not guilty declaration also deprived a severely injured elderly lady and her extremely ill husband with the resources they appeared to need for survival.
A third option was to recommend that the parties compromise and mutually agree to a settlement. Considering the unequal quality of legal representation in this case, this “justice as fairness” (Johnson 2012, p. 161) approach would have not only appeased those jurors who

Running head: JURY DUTY wanted to award the plaintiff but also the jurors who did not feel the defendant was guilty. Even
6 though technically the store was not at fault, the customer suffered several injuries that impacted the customer’s livelihood and lifestyle. Compassion for the less fortunate, even when an individual or organization is not required to display it, can be a common good.
The best decision for me to take in this situation given my emphasis on the value of integrity was to pursue the second option and vote the defendant not guilty. I had a lot of compassion for the plaintiff and would like to have given her an award. Doing so, however, would have compromised the value of integrity which is what I hold dearest and think is most appropriate in this kind of proceeding. Our legal system is based on judges, jurors, lawyers, and witnesses being ethical and doing the right thing. Although many of these situations become matters of conscience and judgment, my philosophy is that jurors have the responsibility and authority to set emotion aside and let the facts speak for themselves.
In this dilemma, my overriding moral principle was the categorical imperative “do what’s right no matter the cost” (Johnson, 2012, p. 158). By following this principle, my moral rule was that legal cases should be decided on facts and principles no matter the consequences.
Consequently, the proper moral judgment for me was to find the defendant not guilty of the charges. Jurors in a lawsuit in which a defendant has been compliant with required federal, state, and local regulations and laws should find a defendant innocent. In this case, the best moral option was to advocate for a not guilty verdict against the defendant instead of being altruistic by siding with the plaintiff and giving her damages because of her tragic personal situation.
Summary
One Sentence Moral Dilemma: As a juror in a civil lawsuit, should I side with a big business defendant that has deep resources and excellent legal representation but is clearly not guilty of

Running head: JURY DUTY the charges filed against it or be altruistic and vote to award damages to a severely injured plaintiff with poor legal representation, minimal resources, and challenging personal circumstances?
Values Discussed in Essay:

Integrity

Fairness

Justice

Equity

Responsibility

Ethical

Compassion
Moral Judgment: Jurors in a lawsuit should base their decisions on legal facts rather than on emotions they have for the involved parties or concern about the consequences their decisions will have on the litigants
Moral Rule: Legal cases should be decided on facts and principles no matter the consequences.
Ethical Analysis
7
Description of Ethical Framework
Applying a multi-dimensional ethical framework model is necessary to validate my moral judgment and moral rule. One such framework is Starratt’s three-part ethical model. His first frame is the Ethic of Critique (Starratt, 1994). Within this theme, one asks questions to uncover injustice, dehumanization, and misuse of power and authority (Starratt, 1994). By doing so, a better moral environment can be restructured. His second framework is the Ethic of Justice
(Starratt, 1994). This theme calls for a reply to the questions raised by the Ethic of Critique. It

Running head: JURY DUTY also demands that actions be taken to construct a new ethical model which will serve the
8 common good and individual rights of all (Starrat, 1994). The third and last framework of
Starrat’s model is the Ethic of Care (Starrat, 1994). Starrat (1994) maintains an ethic of caring can be established by developing a “sensitivity to the dignity and uniqueness of each person” (p.
53). But he says it is imperative to remember that “what is just for one may not be just by another person” (Starrat, 1994, p. 52). A final ethical framework for evaluation is the Ethic of the
Profession. In this ethic, one is expected to apply moral principles in a fair and equitable manner in accordance with standards established by one’s profession.
Ethic of Critique
This case is worthy of scrutiny within the framework of the Ethic of Critique. Simply stated, our legal system is adversarial with attorneys representing the best interests of their clients. As previously stated, there are winners and losers in litigation. Equality, fairness, and truth often take a backseat regardless of facts and extenuating circumstances. Furthermore, power and money often trump justice. In my moral dilemma, a large corporation with substantial resources was able to retain expert legal counsel. In contrast, an elderly plaintiff with limited means was saddled with ineffective legal help. Equally troublesome, juries are entitled to make awards for emotional damages thereby introducing compassion and emotion into the process. In short, the judicial system is an arena where power, privilege, and emotion are theoretically excluded but in reality are not. Within the fact sets of this dilemma, one question to ask is whether courts can be organized so that all parties have competent, fair, and comparable representation in legal proceedings regardless of what they can afford.
Ethic of Justice

Running head: JURY DUTY
Our judicial system is also based upon the concepts that laws should serve the common
9 good, and at the same time, protect individual rights. In my jury experience, I had some concerns about fellow jurors. As previously mentioned many of them were not swayed by the facts of the case and felt almost obligated to award the plaintiff some type of cash settlement because of their compassion for her. In a courtroom setting, my opinion is that cases should be decided on the facts and reasoned interpretation of those facts – not on whether one party can afford to pay a settlement or the other litigant needs money. Then again, other issues can factor in the process such as quality of representation, extenuating circumstances, precedence, and community standards. A key consideration in my dilemma was determining if juries had the right or authority to make decisions based on altruistic or justice as fairness precepts.
Ethic of Care
The possible outcomes in my dilemma favored one side over the other. This is consistent with the adversarial nature of the courts. Yet, I and the other jury members had to be wary of letting too much compassion factor into our deliberations because compassion for one side meant a possible lack of compassion for the other. For example, if the jury had ruled in favor of the plaintiff and awarded damages, it would have displayed a significant amount of compassion for that plaintiff. However, the consequences would have been unfair and lacking in empathy for the truly innocent big business defendant. In contrast, if we would have ruled in favor of the defendant, would it mean that we were not altruistic enough for the plaintiff? As an alternative, we could have recommended the defendant pay a fair and reasonable settlement. In this scenario, needs of both parties might have been meet and some common good achieved. However, given that the defendant decided to go to court rather than settle indicates the defendant felt very strongly that it was not at fault. Conversely, the plaintiff might have decided to roll the dice

Running head: JURY DUTY knowing she had a weak case but hoping to play on the sympathies of the jury. In applying this
10 ethic to my dilemma, it was crucial to resolve the moral quandary of whether to decide lawsuits based only on the facts or to allow other factors to be taken into account.
Ethic of the Profession
The American Bar Association promotes and encourages high ethical conduct and professionalism by lawyers and judges. The standards for practicing attorneys are contained in the yearly ABA publication, Model Rules of Professional Conduct (American Bar Association,
2013). The work’s preamble calls for attorneys to engage in professional and ethical conduct in all manners and to hold accountable those who violate these principles (American Bar
Association, 2013). Likewise, the ABA publishes the Model Code of Judicial Conduct which provides similar ethical conduct guidelines for judges including how they are to work with juries and witnesses (American Bar Association, 2011). Obviously, it is in the profession’s best interest for its members to adhere to high standards and to establish a system where power, resources, and emotion have little impact on legal proceedings. No party is served ethically when those elements are present. If those elements are absent in lawsuits, juries can and should focus on properly making decisions based on facts rather than being swayed by the skill of lawyers and the emotional aspects of those cases. While serving on the jury, I attempted to apply those high standards and adhere to the instructions given to us by the judge.
Conclusion
In considering all options, I remain convinced that finding the large corporation not guilty of the charges was the right thing to do. When I began the assignment, I was very comfortable with that perspective. Although the plaintiff did not have strong representation and a case could be made that coming to an out-of-court settlement was a viable option, I felt strongly that there

Running head: JURY DUTY was a clear moral direction in this situation – find the defendant not guilty. I thought that I had
11 been fair, just, compassionate, equitable, and ethical to both parties. The defendant could not help that it had the resources to defend its position and should not be penalized for that. To me it was very clear that the case against the defendant was weak and had not been proven.
Yet, as I progressed through the assignment, I started asking a number of moral questions about the plaintiff. Had I been fair, just, and compassionate to her? It could be argued that the plaintiff was not adequately represented and that more could have been done to win her case.
The high ethical standards espoused by the American Bar Association might not have been met in this case. What’s more, a point could be made that it was not fair, just, or equitable to the plaintiff that the judicial system is designed so that often only one side wins in civil lawsuits. The plaintiff suffered damages that dramatically affected her and her husband’s lives. Could more have been done for her? Had the ethics of critique, justice, and care been adequately applied? Yet balanced against those new considerations, it remains my moral conviction that jurors are obligated to render decisions based on what they hear and what they observe no matter how well or how poorly the facts are presented. Despite developing strong altruistic feelings and an inclination to be just and fair, I believe the jury should not have awarded any damages to the plaintiff. Accordingly, I continue to subscribe to the notion that jurors should do what is right no matter the consequences.

Running head: JURY DUTY 12
References
American Bar Association. (2011). Model code of Judicial Conduct.
Retrieved from American
Bar Association Center for Professional Responsibility: http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_code
_of_judicial_conduct.html
American Bar Association. (2013). Model rules of professional conduct . Retrieved from
American Bar Association Center for Professional Responsibility: http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules
_of_professional_conduct/model_rules_of_professional_conduct_table_of_contents.html
Johnson, C. E. (2012). Meeting the ethical challenges of leadership: casting light or shadow.
Los
Angeles: Sage.
Starrat, R. J. (1994). Building an ethical school: a practical response to the moral crisis in schools.
London: Falmer Press.