1 trial court cause no. 2015-dcv-0235-b 2 theresa gamez ... › wp-content › uploads › 2016 ›...

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SARA E. RIVERA, CSR, CRR

1

REPORTER'S RECORDTRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. 2015-DCV-0235-B

THERESA GAMEZ,PLAINTIFF

V.

DILLON TRANSPORT, INC.;DILLON TRANSPORT, INC.,IN ITS COMMON OR ASSUMEDNAME;

KENNETH EUGENE JENNINGSANDMIGUEL A. GARCIA, SR.,

DEFENDANTS

)))))))))))))

IN THE DISTRICT COURT

117TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS

_________________________

VOIR DIRE__________________________

On the 2nd day of December, 2015, the

following proceedings came on to be heard in the

above-entitled and numbered cause before the HONORABLE

SANDRA L. WATTS, Judge Presiding, held in Corpus

Christi, Nueces County, Texas:

Proceedings reported by Machine Shorthand.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


2

APPEARANCES:

MR. WILLIAM R. EDWARDS IIISBOT NO. 06465010ANGELINA BELTRANSBOT NO. 02111700The Edwards Law FirmFrost Bank Plaza802 North Carancahua Street, Suite 1400Corpus Christi, Texas 78401Telephone: 361-698-7600

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

MR. ALEJANDRO BLANCOCalifornia Bar No. 133073The Blanco Law Firm, P.C.535 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 700Glendale, California 91203Telephone: 661-948-6000

andMR. CRAIG S. SMITHSBOT NO. 18553570Law Offices of Craig S. Smith14493 SPID, Suite A, PMB 240Corpus Christi, Texas 78418Telephone: 361-728-8037

ATTORNEYS FOR CROSS PLAINTIFF, MIGUEL A. GARCIA, SR.

MR. LARRY D. WARRENSBOT NO. 20888450Naman, Howell, Smith & Lee, PLLC1001 Reunion Place, Suite 600San Antonio, Texas 78218Telephone: 210-731-6350

ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT, DILLON TRANSPORT, INC.

MR. DOUGLAS CHAVESSBOT NO. 04161400MR. AIDAN PERALESSBOT NO. 24027604Chaves, Obregon & Perales, LLP802 North Carancahua, Suite 2100Corpus Christi, Texas 78401Telephone: 361-884-5400

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT KENNETH EUGENE JENNINGS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


3

IndexVoir Dire

December 2, 2015 Page

Court Calls Case........................ 4Announcements by Counsel................ 4Court's Opening Remarks and Instructions 4General Voir Dire by Mr. Edwards........ 22Jury Panel Excused for Noon Recess...... 96Discussion with Some Panel Members...... 96Noon Recess............................. 104Discussion with Additional Panel Member. 104General Voir Dire ResumesBy Mr. Edwards (continues)............. 108By Mr. Blanco.......................... 135By Mr. Chaves.......................... 167By Mr. Warren.......................... 220

Jury Recessed........................... 231Challenges for Cause.................... 231Attorneys Prepare Strikes............... 250Court Speaks to Panel................... 250Jury Selected and Seated................ 250Remaining Panel Excused................. 254Jury Oath Administered.................. 254Instructions by the Court............... 254Jury Recessed for Evening............... 260Voir Dire Concluded..................... 260Court Reporter's Certification.......... 261

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


4

P R O C E E D I N G S

(December 2, 2015)

(Jury panel seated in courtroom.)

THE COURT: Mr. Gallegos, all present?

THE BAILIFF: Yes, Judge.

THE COURT: All right. At this time, the

Court is going to call 15-0235-B, Theresa Gamez versus

Dillon Transport, Inc., Kenneth Eugene Jennings and

Miguel A. Garcia, Jr. Announcements from the

plaintiffs, please.

MR. EDWARDS: Your Honor, Theresa Gamez.

I'm Billy Edwards and my law partner, Angie Beltran and

we are ready.

THE COURT: All right. I was gonna

introduce you, but if you want to introduce yourselves,

you may do so.

For the defendant and cross plaintiff,

please.

MR. SMITH: Miguel Garcia --

THE COURT: Miguel Garcia --

MR. SMITH: -- Craig Smith and Alejandro

Blanco for Miguel Garcia who's standing right here.

THE COURT: And for Dillon Transport, Inc.

MR. WARREN: Yes, Your Honor. Thank you.

Larry Warren along with Mr. Jeff Parker of Dillon

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


5

Transport and assisting me is Mr. Kim Dixon.

THE COURT: And for defendant,

Kenneth Eugene Jennings.

MR. CHAVES: Good morning. My name is

Douglas Chaves. I, along with my partner, Aidan Perales

and Patty Mase from my office. We represent

Kenneth Jennings. Raise your hand, Kenneth.

THE COURT: All right. Good morning. We

have been waiting anxiously for you to come up. You-all

may be seated.

MR. WARREN: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Welcome to the 117th District

Court. Ordinarily home is on the ninth floor, but as

you can see by the number of attorneys and litigants

here, and the number that we've called, it was -- it's

imperative that we try it in what we call, the

litigation courtroom, which is on the fifth floor. This

will be our home for the duration of this case.

My name is Sandra Watts and I am the

presiding judge of the 117th District Court. And the

first thing I want to do is I want to welcome you.

Now, I know about two or three weeks ago

you got that summons and there is a collective sigh in

Nueces County when the summons reach our citizens. We

all have the same reaction and that is, oh, I've got

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


6

jury duty. And I have -- I get jury duty summons and I

get the same reaction that you might have had. I will

tell you that we try to plan for your inconvenience and

we are here to tell you up front, we know that you are

being inconvenienced from your jobs, from your family,

from your homes, et cetera, but you are about important

business here today. And I do mean to emphasize that.

You live in a free country and the way that we resolve

disputes in this free country of ours is through the

jury system. And it is the best, by far, dispute

resolution method that exists. And if you were to go to

the first five books of the Bible you will find that it

is the nations of Israel called upon their elders,

citizens resolving disputes for citizens.

By 500 B.C., the Greeks had in place a

system where the privileged or those -- the privileged

resolved disputes that they had among themselves. Then

the Romans did what they did best. They were the

conquerors. And as they conquered civilizations they

plagiarized the best ideas of those civilizations as

they went to the far reaches of the western and the

eastern Roman Empire, from Turkey to England.

By the fourth century, in England, there --

the nobles had a dispute resolution method by which the

-- the nobles who would have disputes would, in effect,

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


7

resolve those disputes. Citizens resolving disputes for

other citizens. It was in place for 800 years. In

other words, from the 300's, the fourth century, until

the 13th century, when John I of England had a

revelation -- he probably had a revelation and I'm sure

other monarchs had it before him, think of the advantage

he would have if it was the crown that resolved disputes

between two nobles, or think of the advantage that the

crown would have if it was the crown resolving a dispute

with a noble. So by edict, he did away with trial by

jury that the nobles have had in place for 800 years.

The nobles rose up in a coup d'etat at Runnymede and the

result was the king backed down, and we had the first

written democratic document, the Magna Carta in 1215.

And it is there that you're going to find the phrase

that every man deserves to be tried by his peers.

Folks, you are the peers here today. And this is the

best system because you have no dog in this hunt. As

King John, you have not -- no one's influenced you. You

probably don't know anybody in this room. Maybe you do,

maybe you don't. No one has tried to talk to you about

anything about this case. You may not, in effect, have

any idea what this case is about. That's why you're the

best jury.

Now, we have to know that that jury system,

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


8

that became part of our civilized democratic documents

the Magna Carta, when the pilgrims, which mainly came

from the Western European nations, they brought those

all the way across in those rickety books -- rickety

boats, I might say, to the colonies. And even in

primitive colonial America there was trial by jury,

trial by citizens instead of government.

Now, we know there were lots of disputes

with England because we fought a war with them, the

Revolutionary War. But what few people realized that

one of the reasons for fighting the war with England was

not just no representation without -- no taxation

without representation. It was because of the denial of

the crown of trial by jury in the colonies. The crown,

George III, he tried to deal with this restless

population in the colonies by doing what a lot of

monarchs do, impose more restrictions, more regulations,

and the result was he passed a series of Stamp Acts.

And that Stamp Act, one of the parts of that Stamp Act

was that all dispute s with England would be handled in

England in the courts at Bailey -- on Bailey Street. In

other words, literally denying the right to bring

disputes against the crown in the colonies, and also,

the denial of trial by jury, a dispute resolution by

citizens.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


9

That war was fought and it was successful,

and in 1787, the Constitution was passed. And it was

ratified by the requisite number of states. However,

there was a glaring omission in the Constitution.

Because the Constitution dealt with the structure and

the form of government. And with the exception of "we,

the people," in the preamble, you can't find our rights

in the basic body of the Constitution. But two years

afterwards in 1789, the Bill of Rights was passed, all

10 first amendments to the Constitution know -- are

called the Bill of Rights and that's where you and I

find our rights. It is in the Sixth Amendment to the

Constitution that you will find the right of trial by

jury in criminal cases, and it is in the Seventh

Amendment in the federal Constitution that you will find

it for civil cases.

Now, we from Texas like to think we were

right up there, we were leading the brigades, we were

one of the radicals up there before the revolution. But

we were Johnny-come-lately to the United States of

America because we had unresolved issues with Mexico.

And in 1836, those resolutions, or, I would say, those

disputes came to a head when the Texans declared their

independence. And in primitive Texas territory, under

the Spanish -- I mean under Mexico, we had a system that

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


10

you are here about today. And I know that because in

the Texas declaration of the Constitution it's probably

one of the best paragraphs and explanations of trial by

jury. Those writers said that this war with Mexico was

being fought because of the refusal of the Mexican

government to secure on a firm basis, not even the

denial, but the refusal to secure on a firm basis the

right of trial by jury. Being Texans, we did not put a

period there. We put a comma, and we said, the right of

trial by jury, that palladium of all civil liberties.

We put another comma and we said, in the only safe

guarantee of life, liberty and property.

The palladium means this. It is the

structure on which all other rights can be enforced.

That's the importance of this trial by jury, not by

government. That war was successful and we have an

undeniable constitutional right to trial by jury in all

civil and criminal cases in Texas.

In 19 -- 80 years ago, 1930, the Texas

legislature met and created the 117th District Court.

The district court is the basic trial court in Texas,

and that is why you have been summoned today in this

long history of resolution of disputes to help us

resolve a dispute that we have here today.

Now, I want to go back to your

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


11

inconvenience to tell you that it's a lot better now.

We plan for your inconvenience. We give you advance

notice that this is happening and you're gonna get an

opportunity to do your civic duty.

Back then, in the early courts, if I need

-- if I was the judge back then, and we needed a jury, I

sent the bailiff out into the hallways of the

courthouse. And I would say, go find me a jury. And

the bailiff would tap you on the shoulder while you were

paying your taxes, while you were getting a survey for

your property, doing whatever county business that you

have and said, we need you now in the 117th to serve on

a jury. So we've come a long way. It's a random

selection. It's all done by computer. We used to call

it the jury wheel, and your number comes up, and you are

given that summons and then you come to the courthouse

to do what a lot of citizens have done in the past and

what we hope will be available to you in the future

where your peers will help resolve disputes.

So that gives you an idea that we've got a

dispute here. You would not be here if we did not have

a dispute. And you as the -- what we're here about is

to select 12, plus two alternates, fair and impartial

jurors to hear this case and resolve the dispute, okay?

Now, I know you're all gung ho about now

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


12

serving that we have gone through the importance of this

system.

But let me tell you about what it means to

be a juror. We're looking for 12 fair and impartial

jurors and we as lawyers think we know what that means,

what it is, and it really means that you have no

preconceived idea of bias about the nature of this case

or the people that are in involved in this case, and

that you can follow the law. So let's start there with

following the law.

When you are called as a juror, you are the

ones that are going to decide the disputed facts and you

have literally a lot of discretion in doing that. You

can believe everything a witness says, you can reject

everything a witness says, or you can pick and choose

what you believe to be the facts, okay? But I cannot

have a maverick in the jury room saying, I can't follow

that law, I don't agree with that, I'm not going to. We

need to know that now because there will be a lot of

time and energy invested in getting here and also in

picking your -- this jury and also trying this case.

And one of the requirements of a juror, you must be able

to follow the law. You're gonna determine the facts

that are in dispute, but I'm going to give you the law

that you will apply to that fact and you must be able to

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


13

follow that. And some of that will happen, what we're

gonna do right now. So, 12 fair and impartial.

Now, I will tell you up front, I am 69

years of age, okay. Hopefully, at my age, I have

thought about a few things. I may even have strong

positions on a few things because of my experiences, the

experiences of my family or the experiences -- or what

I've read or what I believe. You are entitled to all of

those opinions. Okay. But when you serve as a juror,

those opinions don't decide the case. What decides the

case is the evidence that is brought into this courtroom

by the litigants and the lawyers for you to hear,

evaluate, and give weight and -- weight and value to it,

all right? But just because you have a strong opinion

does not mean you can't serve on a jury. Like I say,

you would have hoped I would have thought something.

But when I served as a juror, I have to put aside all of

those positions or strong opinions. They have no place.

What has a place in this courtroom is what you hear and

see in this courtroom and then you make a determination

as far as giving weight and value to what you see.

Okay. So just because you have an opinion, remember,

the bottom line is, despite that opinion, can you still

be fair and impartial? An open mind is what we're

looking for.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


14

This process that we're about ready to

begin is called the voir dire. That's a French term, to

speak the truth, and the ones we are asking to speak the

truth today are you, okay? You took an oath on Monday

to give true answers to questions asked about you

regarding your suitability to sit as a juror in a case,

and in fact, in this case. That is an oath that's still

here with us today. What you have filled out and signed

to was that little piece of card that you gave some

basic information. Those -- that information I have,

the lawyers have, and they can ask you questions from

that basic information or they can go beyond that basic

information and delve into other areas. These lawyers

have a job to do. That job is, we are sitting here with

73 prospective jurors. This is not a process of, I want

this one, I want that one. It is not a selection

process. It is an elimination process. And the way

this process works is the lawyers ask questions, you

give the answers.

Now, there are two people that are

important in this courtroom, one was the bailiff, you've

already met Art Gallegos. He is the liaison between me

and you. If you have problems, questions, you address

them to Mr. Gallegos and then he brings them to my

attention.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


15

Sitting in front of you is probably one of

the most important persons in the courtroom. Her name

is Sara Rivera and she is one of the certified court

reporters that appear in my courtroom, assigned to me,

I've hired them. And another one will be also

appearing, they'll be trading off, Olivia Aguilar.

Their job is to record literally every sound in this

courtroom, or compilations of sounds or words, et

cetera. She has this little magic machine that's got so

many characters. It puts out -- it used to be if you

served on a jury, there were these little trays of white

paper and it was all hieroglyphics and they had great

job security because nobody else could read it. Now

they have these fancy machines, but she types still on

the former 10-key or whatever she has, and automatically

with this wonderful machine, realtime approaches and

she's got English words where she typed in

hieroglyphics. She has to be able to hear you. This is

a big panel, and as a result, when we get to asking

questions in the back of the room, number one, it's hard

to see what row you're on. And number two, it's hard to

literally see you among the faces. It is imperative

that you speak clearly and that you speak loud enough

for Ms. Rivera to be able to take down your answer

because that is her job, to make a complete, accurate

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


16

transcript of everything that transpires in this

courtroom.

Now, you are sitting there with cards.

Okay. We didn't think you couldn't stand in line in

numerical order. That is not why you have that card.

These attorneys are meeting 73 people for the first

time. They are -- you are sitting literally in exact

positions based upon the random selection that was done

and has been filtered down to this point, and you have a

lot of different names. It takes a long time to get to

voir dire if they have to reflect in a general question

and look for your name and look for the person in the

row, et cetera. Some of them will attempt to do that.

This card is to answer general questions

from the lawyers. Okay. Some of the questions you will

be asked will be presented to the entire panel. You

will be asked, for example, is there anyone in the

courtroom that you know, the lawyers, the parties, the

witnesses, et cetera. If you're gonna respond to that,

you would raise your card, you would keep it elevated

until you hear your number. At that time, your number

-- hearing your number is the stimulus for you to bring

down your card. Those are called general questions of

the entire panel. And you can understand if we ask a

general question and we have 10 people shout out, that

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


17

would be a little bit chaotic and we wouldn't get very

far, so that's why we use the cards, okay?

Now, then what will follow up is specific

questions. They will say, Juror No. 4, who is it that

you know, if you had raised your card, how well do you

know them, and despite that relationship, can you be

fair and impartial in this case? Remember, everything

boils down to, despite your position, despite your

opinion, can you be fair and impartial with an open mind

listening to the facts in the case.

Now, I am going to test this voir dire.

They're gonna do it again, I'm sure, but I have

introduced you to the lawyers, a lot of them, and I've

introduced you to -- or they have introduced their

parties and their paralegals. At this time, is there

anyone sitting on this panel that knows any of the

individuals that have been introduced to you so far? If

you do, please raise your card. All right. That's the

appropriate way. That was the question of the whole

panel -- hold on -- 6, 33, 46, 63, 73. Mr. 54, are you

--

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 54: No, I'm sorry.

THE COURT: Okay. All right. Now, I said

6. Okay. Now, the question that would then be asked,

Juror No. 6, who is it that you know, how well do you

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


18

know them, and they can ask any number of questions, but

the bottom line is, despite knowing this paralegal, can

you still be fair and impartial in this case? All

right. That's the way it's gonna work.

All right. Now, the first thing you need

to know is everything we do, everything I do, everything

the lawyers do, everything the jurors do are subject to

rules, the law, and it's my job to ensure that there is

a fair trial and that it is all done according to the

Rules of Evidence or the Rules of Procedure. I will

tell you that my job is I am not on one side or the

other. I am like the umpire in the room calling it

based upon the Rules of Evidence. But my job is very

important from the standpoint, I'm the one that, in

effect, decides the law that you're going to use and

that you must follow. So we give you certain

instructions right at the beginning. Instruction number

one is:

Do not communicate with or have

conversations with any of the lawyers, the parties, the

witnesses, or anyone who is interested in the outcome of

this case. We are under the same instructions that you

are under. We are not going to engage you in these

conversations. The reason is we want to avoid the

appearance of impropriety. So if I have one of my

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


19

lawyers speaking to one of the individuals on the panel

about poor Romo, he's out again. The bottom line is, is

that would give the appearance that there might be a

rapport being developed between a juror and an attorney

representing one of the parties. We avoid all those

appearances by these instructions. So if anyone

approaches you about this case, that's when you need to

advise Mr. Gallegos or me with regards to that so that I

can take corrective action.

Number two, do not accept from or give to

any of the individuals we named, any favors, however

slight, rides, food, refreshments, et cetera, and the

exception is that generally I will provide you with

something in the morning when you come to wait for us

and you'll have coffee and probably something to nibble

on. So, you have a flat tire, nobody in here is gonna

fix that flat tire, okay? Including me. But we would

go get somebody, perhaps -- we would get somebody to

assist you. It's again, avoid the appearance of

impropriety.

Number two, or number three, do not discuss

this case with anyone whomsoever, whether it's your

spouse, significant other, your employer, your neighbor,

your friend, a co-worker. Please do not discuss this

case with anyone whomsoever from the time that you're on

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


20

the panel till the time that you serve as a juror until

I have discharged you from these instructions. There's

always a reason behind the instructions. This one is to

avoid outside influences. If this happened to be a

capital murder case and you said, I'm a juror on a

capital murder case, please, you know, somebody is gonna

start addressing the death penalty with you. That's

called an outside influence. And while you're sitting

as a juror, we want to insulate you from those outside

opinions. Sometimes opinions from your spouse,

sometimes from your employer, whatever it is. Cause

you're gonna take an oath to render a verdict in this

courtroom based upon what you hear and the evidence

presented in this courtroom alone, not what somebody

else might take out or share with you from the outside.

So again, please do not have any conversations or allow

anyone to discuss your jury duty with you during this

time.

It's interesting that we now have to go

into an instruction that we usually didn't go into until

later on. I'll just share with you in a previous case

of mine, Juror No. 36, who isn't there, I mentioned it

was a criminal case at that time, I mentioned that the

defendant was so and so. She took out her cell phone so

fast and started Googling, okay, so here's the social

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


21

media instruction.

Do not use any form of social media from

this point forward with regards to any aspect of this

case and I mean, texting, tweeting, instagraming, no

pictures. I don't care if you say, oh, this was so

boring. Do not communicate anything about this case at

all, any form of social media, while you are on a panel

or while you are sitting as a juror in this case. And

do not allow anyone to communicate to you with requests

for information about the case or what is going on.

Everybody understand that?

Texas law permits proof of jury misconduct.

That means that somebody can grade our papers later on

to determine whether or not there were violations of the

instructions that I just gave and whether those

violations resulted in a trial that was not fair to all

of the litigants. And if I determine that, you might --

excuse me, if that is alleged, I might have to have you

come back to the courthouse, give an affidavit and/or

take the witness stand to give information as to whether

the instructions were followed or they were not. If I

determine they were not, and that was harmful, then I

would have to declare a mistrial and we'd have to do it

all over again. And the one thing we don't want to have

to do is the redundancy of the resources and the time

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


22

that you-all are about ready to invest in serving as in

your civic duty.

Does anybody have any questions with

regards to the instructions that I just gave?

(No audible or visible response.)

THE COURT: Very good. Here it comes.

We're about ready to begin a civil case. This is not a

criminal case. It's a civil case and it is, Theresa

Gamez versus Dillon Transport, Inc., Kenneth Eugene

Jennings and Miguel A. Garcia, Sr.

They're represented by -- I am going to

tell you, very, very competent counsel. These counsel

are not gonna waste your time. They are gonna be

prepared. And they're gonna get through this case as

quickly as they can in the interest of justice and doing

the best they can for their clients.

I am telling you in advance that the

lawyers and I have discussed the possible length of this

trial, and we believe that it's going to take two and a

half weeks to conclude this trial and your

deliberations. Which means that this trial could go

through December 18th, which is a Friday. I'm making a

strong commitment to me -- to you, that we would

conclude by that time, and I know that you'd rather work

longer hours than have to come back during the week of

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


23

the beginning of the week of Christmas. But that is our

goal and that is what we are going to do. Our working

hours, we'll always start at 9:00 and we will conclude

at 5:30. There may be a time we would go beyond that,

because if we're in the middle of a witness, there's

natural breaks in the testimony, and I will try to get

to one of those natural breaks before we recess for the

day. Sometimes we will work past that time period. You

will get breaks. So I know people are real anxious

about, you know, I need time. If there is a hand in

that jury box that raises and says, I need a break, I

guarantee you, I will shut it down and we will take the

break that you need. There's always a morning break,

there's an afternoon break, and there is a lunch break,

and I will tell you there's a lunch in your future here

today too. That is our working -- what you're facing

over the next two and a half weeks and we will conclude,

hopefully, and I think all these attorneys are pretty

much committed to that as well.

I will go over certain other things with

you, but I want to leave you with this: This is a

system of justice where we're looking to citizens to

resolve disputes, that is, we're saying, don't allow

bias, prejudice, to have any part in your role as fact

finders and that's what you are. Now, what transpires

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


24

now is that the attorneys will now make brief opening

remarks and begin the voir dire, the question and

answer.

You are meeting 73 people for the first

time and occasionally, there will be a time that you

don't feel comfortable answering a question in front of

your new best friends, and I understand that. But this

process works quickly when we can deal with everybody

answering in front of everybody else. However, if that

is not possible, and you do not want to answer in front

of all 73, you simply advise the attorneys and after the

voir dire, we will take you up individually to, in

effect, conclude the questioning that you might -- that

might be -- that they want to ask you.

They're not intending to embarrass you.

They're not intending to put you on the spot. They're

not intending to, in any way, make you feel

uncomfortable. Their whole job is that, what, pick a

fair and impartial jury. So answer questions

truthfully, answer them briefly, if you can, and the

plaintiff will go first. They have, the plaintiff's

side, and the plaintiff and -- I'm gonna say, Theresa

Gamez and Miguel Garcia, that side will have two and a

half hours of voir dire, both general and specific. And

then the defense, that is for Dillon Transport and

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


25

Mr. Jennings, will also have two and a half hours.

They're seasoned attorneys. They're not gonna waste

your time, but it's gonna take that involvement. At

some point in time, probably closer to 1:00, there will

be a lunch break, and then I'm gonna share this with you

now. When I give a break, we can't start until

everybody's back. I think you saw a little bit of that

this morning, so it's important that we are very

conscious and courteous to everybody else.

At this time, the plaintiff may go forward.

Because the distance is so far to the bench, I'm sitting

here during voir dire, so I can hear.

MR. EDWARDS: Thank you, Judge.

THE COURT: You bet.

MR. EDWARDS: May it please the Court,

counsel. Good morning.

MEMBERS OF THE JURY PANEL: Good morning.

MR. EDWARDS: You need to move a moment,

shift in your seat, get blood flowing in places where it

might not be flowing.

So this morning, you get the opportunity to

open your mind and share your feelings with the perfect

stranger. And I'm sure that three weeks ago, before you

received your summons to come down here this week, you

weren't sitting at home saying to yourself, you know, I

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


26

would really like to sit down with the perfect stranger

and open my mind and share my feelings, and oh, to make

it more fun, let's bring a judge into my home to put me

under oath to be honest as I open my mind and share my

feelings with a perfect stranger. Let me -- if you will

allow me, let me share a couple of quick stories with

you about my experience on your side of voir dire.

I was once called -- summoned to jury

service and Ms. Jenkins, I sat in chair number one.

Now, you may not know it, but you're the hot seat, and

in fact, the first 12 of you have the highest chance of

being transferred to the jury box. But Mr. Nunez, back

at No. 80.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 80: Right here.

MR. EDWARDS: Don't lose track because I've

seen circumstances where the very last person was called

by the judge into this box.

So I was sitting here as Juror No. 1 and

the Judge gave the oath for me to be honest in answering

questions from the attorneys who were about to get up

and ask questions. And the first lawyer to step up to

the microphone was my father. And I started thinking,

going through my head, man, what do I think he doesn't

know about my high school years that he does know. I

would suggest to you that having a perfect stranger ask

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


27

you the questions that are coming may actually be more

comfortable than to have somebody who is intimately

familiar with your life asking you those same questions.

Another quick story for you. Just a matter

of two months ago, I was summoned for jury service. And

I was No. 52 this time, not so much in the hot seat.

And I sat down in chair No. 52 and I looked up and I

knew that it was a criminal case, and that the

prosecutor's table was a very young prosecutor and with

her was, obviously, a more -- an older lawyer. And you

know the voice in your head, my voice just started

going. I wonder if this is her first voir dire. I

wonder if she's done this before. I guess she's here as

a young lawyer and he's gonna be guiding her through

this. And I look over at the criminal defense lawyer

and I say, oh, she's a little older. I wonder if she

went through the prosecutor's office to get her training

and now she's out in her own law firm practicing law. I

wonder if she does anything other than criminal law.

Maybe she does other work on the side. I wonder what

she's doing. About that time the judge interrupts my

voice and says, this is a felony case. This is a felony

theft case. Now my -- the voice in my head shifts

gears. Oh, I wonder what he stole. I wonder what they

caught him with. I wonder what evidence they have. I

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


28

wonder if they have a confession. Did he confess to

what he did? Why are we down here? Was he previously

convicted of other crimes and this is more about the

sentencing than whether or not he's guilty or not? That

was just my voice, going, going, going, going. It's

only human nature that that's what our voice does. And

if you're like me, right now, there's a voice going.

And the voice that is speaking to me right now is asking

this question over, and over, and over again. Who here

may have feelings against Theresa Gamez's case? You

see, as her lawyer, it is my responsibility to find out

who here may have feelings against her case.

Let me give you an example of what I'm

talking about. If we were having a competition to see

who could bake the best pie, and it was down to two

competitors, one with an apple pie and one with a

cherry, and randomly, I was called from the office to be

the judge and it just so happens, let's say, I'm not

crazy about cherry pie. Do we all agree that the right

thing for me to do is to share that with the

contestants? Because the contestants are gonna want to

know that, especially the contestant who baked the

cherry pie. So do we all agree that the right thing for

me to do in that circumstance is to disclose my distaste

to the contestants? And the other right thing for me to

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


29

do is to be honest with myself about the potential

impact that my distaste may have on my decision.

Now, I may not be saying that I will throw

the contest if the apple pie is a sorry, dried up mess,

and the cherry pie is a succulent beauty. But all

things being equal, when I take a bite of cherry pie,

that tangy taste just causes my lip to curl ever so

slightly, no matter how hard I may try to like it.

So do we all agree that the right thing for

me to do in that situation is to be honest with myself

and reveal to the contestants this particular distaste

that I have? Now, I might be a perfectly good judge for

the chili cooking contest down the road because I like

all kinds of chili.

Now, of course, this case has nothing to do

with cherry pie or chili. But this is a personal injury

lawsuit and I need to know, to fulfill my

responsibility, which of you here today may have

feelings, some feelings against personal injury

lawsuits. Different people may have different reasons

for having some kind of feelings against personal injury

lawsuits. And so let me open up the floor for a moment.

Can anybody think of reasons that somebody might have

feelings against -- can you think of reasons that

somebody might have feelings against a personal injury

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


30

lawsuit?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 37: Been sued

before.

MR. EDWARDS: I'm sorry?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 37: Been sued

before.

MR. EDWARDS: Been sued before. Yes,

that's a very good reason. Any others?

THE COURT: Mr. Edwards, would you have

them state their numbers for the court reporter?

MR. EDWARDS: And I will call it out for

you.

THE COURT: Very good.

MR. EDWARDS: It wasn't visible to me, but

I'll do a better job of that.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. EDWARDS: Number 37. Thank you. Any

other reasons that you can think of? Number 47.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 47: I think it's

abused a lot here in this area.

MR. EDWARDS: Abuse of lawsuits.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 47: Right.

MR. EDWARDS: What else, No. 21?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 21: Everybody don't

take small personal injury because it's a, how big the

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


31

case is, what I know or I talk to somebody and they go

to this personal injury lawsuit with the big guys, the

one that you see in the commercial. If it's just

against a small or an individual, not a company, they

don't get -- they don't get like treated right, or not

treated right, they don't get entertained (sic) other

than if it's somebody that would be --

MR. EDWARDS: Okay. So somebody may not

get full justice in a personal injury lawsuit?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 21: That's correct.

MR. EDWARDS: Okay. Any other reasons that

we can think of? Yes, No. 70?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 70: Potential for

abuse.

MR. EDWARDS: Abuse of it, right.

THE REPORTER: What number was that?

MR. EDWARDS: That was 70.

MR. CHAVES: 70.

THE REPORTER: Okay.

MR. EDWARDS: Let me get 75.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 75: Being a business

owner also.


PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 75: Being a business

owner also concerns me.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


32

MR. EDWARDS: Being a business owner and it

can have perceived negative consequences on business

owners.


MR. EDWARDS: And what was your number

again? 75. Thank you.

What else? Did I see another number over

here?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 37: Excessive

payouts.

MR. EDWARDS: Excessive payouts. The

awards are too big.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 37: Yeah, too big.

MR. EDWARDS: That's No. 37.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 37: That's why you

make a good living on it.

MR. EDWARDS: Yes, No. 80?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 80: Yes, sir. I've

been sued by the insurance for a wreck.

MR. EDWARDS: I'm sorry, can you repeat

that one more time?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 80: I got sued by my

insurance because my girl had a wreck.

MR. EDWARDS: Okay. So being sued before

can be a reason to have a feeling against personal

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


33

injury lawsuits.

So we all -- and I'm gonna -- let me --

I'll come back to you.

UNIDENTIFIED PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Okay.

MR. EDWARDS: I was mostly looking for

reasons that we might think of. And thank you for your

responses. That's very helpful. Now I want to go to

this. A minute ago, my question -- my question a moment

ago was, can you think of reasons. Now my question is,

and I'm gonna take a little better note this time. Who

here actually does have some feelings against personal

injury lawsuits for whatever the reason may be? Number

37, 40 -- I'll tell you what, let me start -- I'm gonna

go row by row if you'll allow me, okay? Anybody in the

first row have any feelings against personal injury

lawsuits? Number 4. And I'll come back and ask about

these things, but let's just right now get it

identified. Is that all right?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 4: Uh-huh.

MR. EDWARDS: Good. Second row is number

16. Anybody else on row 16 that may have feelings

against personal injury lawsuits?


MR. EDWARDS: How about the third row?

Anybody there?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


34


MR. EDWARDS: No. And the fourth row, I've

already got 37. Anybody else on that fourth row?


MR. EDWARDS: The fifth row in the 40's.

47 and 48. Anybody else in the 40's?


MR. EDWARDS: Anybody in the 50's? 53 and

54. And how about in the 60's? Anybody in the 60's?

Number 69, No. 70. Now I guess we're going into the

last row, the 70's. I've got 78, 79 and 80. Anybody

else in the last row? 73 and 75.

So let me digress a minute. When I was

Juror No. 52 in that criminal case a couple of months

back, I had answered in my -- on that juror information

card where it asks about anybody in your family is law

enforcement. I'd answered that no because I had it in

my head that that question was asking about like police

officers. And in the middle of voir dire the criminal

defense lawyer raised that question again. And as I sat

there thinking about it, it occurred to me, I have a

brother-in-law who's a county attorney who prosecutes

criminal cases. That's probably law enforcement and

he's actually been out on raids with law enforcement

before. So I -- it took me a moment. I sat there

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


35

saying to myself, that voice again, I wonder if I should

raise my hand because maybe this is law enforcement,

maybe it's not. And I eventually raised my hand so that

I can go ahead and make full disclosure. I will bring

that up at this point for this. We just went row by row

and there may be some of you who are sitting there

going, I may have a -- is that a feeling against

personal injury lawsuits or not? So I'm gonna give one

last opportunity, I'm not gonna go row by row. Anybody

who did not raise their card who is sitting there with

that little voice going, maybe I should raise my card.

Number 9. Anybody else? 21 and 42.

MR. SMITH: 41.

MR. EDWARDS: I'm sorry? Oh, 41 and 42.

So I think what I will do is come back to each of you

real quick and ask, Mr. Hinojosa, correct, No. 4?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 4: Yes, uh-huh.

MR. EDWARDS: I will start with you.

You're in the hot seat.


MR. EDWARDS: You've indicated that you may

have some feelings against personal injury lawsuits.

Can you explain that a little bit, your reason?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 4: Well, we're being

sued at my company, Goodman. And I was outside helping

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


36

a customer load, safety chains were up, he inadvertently

slipped off the dock with the chains up. He indicated

he was fine. It's been about nine, ten months later,

now we're getting sued. I have to be a witness because

I was the one that was outside. He's flinging around

outside all the time. He's still coming in and he's

fine.

MR. EDWARDS: Sure.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 4: So I just -- and

I can't even tell him anything. I can't talk to him.

Apparently, my boss won't let me. But I might have to

go to a deposition and all of that. I don't get why it

took so long. And he's -- to me he's fine, so.

MR. EDWARDS: All right. So, let me share

another quick story with you so that we can have a means

to talk about what you're saying, because what I hear

you saying -- by the way, I probably won't be the only

lawyer doing this. You may hear us use a shorthand of

something to the effect of what I hear you saying.

Because we want to make sure that we're clear that we

understand that what you intended to say is what we

heard. And none of us are trying to put words in your

mouth. All right. We're trying to shortcut the process

to make sure that we correctly heard you.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


37

MR. EDWARDS: And so, Mr. Hinojosa, what I

hear you saying is, your employer has been sued

currently in suit.


MR. EDWARDS: It's having a negative impact

on your schedule. You aren't crazy about the guy that's

bringing the lawsuit.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 4: No.

MR. EDWARDS: All right. So a couple of

quick stories to see if I can exemplify something. When

I was in the third grade, there was a fella by the name

of Gary, who came up to me unprovoked and slugged me in

the stomach. And you know, it more than hurt me, it

hurt my feelings, because I thought he was my friend.

And as you can tell, I still remember Gary. Now, if I

was sitting in your chair, Mr. Hinojosa, and somebody up

here was named Gary, I would go, oh, that reminds me of

my friend, Gary, who slugged me in the stomach in the

third grade. I wonder what that dirty dog is doing

today. And then if a lawyer asked me, can you still be

impartial even though your good friend, Gary, who

happens to be the plaintiff's name, can you still put

that aside and be fair and impartial in this case? And

of course I'd say, sure. I know that Gary was back

there, and this Gary's got nothing to do with that Gary.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


38

That same year, third grade, of elementary school, my

friends next door to us had a German Shepherd dog and we

knew that he was an aggressive dog and he nipped me.

Thankfully, it wasn't a real bad bite, but I remember

that as well. Now, if I happen to be called in to a

panel like this for a dog bite case and everybody agreed

that the dog didn't bite the plaintiff, there was -- if

everybody agreed that the plaintiff aggravated the dog,

I might be a perfectly fine juror in that case. But as

soon as there was contested evidence, conflicting

evidence, the plaintiff saying, I didn't provoke the

dog. The dog just attacked me and bit me. And the

defense will -- the defendant, the owner of the dog is

saying, my dog never bites anybody and you have to

provoke the dog if you want it to bite -- if it's ever

gonna bite anybody it's got to be provoked. Now, in

that case, if I'm asked, can you be -- Mr. Edwards, can

you be a fair and impartial juror? I have to really

look in my heart and go, you know what, when I hear that

conflicting evidence, where I go in my head is, I knew

these dang German Shepherds were all biters. And I'm

sorry, Judge.

THE COURT: That's okay.

MR. EDWARDS: And I would have to say, you

know what, this isn't the right jury for me to be on.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


39

If you're talking about a dog bite case, where the

evidence is contested and the dog is a German Shepherd,

I really shouldn't be on that panel or on that jury.

You see the difference I'm getting to Mr. Hinojosa?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 4: Yep.

MR. EDWARDS: All right. So, you've got

this problem at work. Is it akin to my friend -- friend

who slugged me in the stomach, or is it akin to the dog

who bit me? Can you set this aside and be an impartial

fact finder in this case or is this something that's

gonna spill over, as -- if you were to be on this jury?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 4: I can be fair.

MR. EDWARDS: All right. That's all we can

ask for you. You understand?


MR. EDWARDS: All right.

Mr. Benavides, you indicated that you might

have some feelings against personal injury lawsuits?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 9: A month ago, my

wife backs up, where she works, into a car parked in an

area that wasn't supposed to be there at three miles an

hour. All of a sudden, she feels pain in her neck,

arms, other stuff. We don't know what's gonna happen.

This was just a month ago. So I -- you know, in my

head, she's faking it and I'm already that -- in my

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


40

head, in my mind.

MR. EDWARDS: You have actually nicely

jumped ahead to another question that I have on my list

here. And so let me get to it. I'll jump to it with

you.

And in case I didn't say it for the record,

we're talking with Mr. Benavides, No. 9.

There are -- I know that there are some

folks, because of experience or otherwise, who are

suspicious of people who bring personal injury lawsuits.

They're just suspicious of their motivation. They're

suspicious of whether or not they're really hurt.

They're just generally suspicious of the people who

bring them. And it sounds like that's what you're

pointing to. That you have this personal experience

going on in your life where you're under the threat of

perhaps being sued. And in your eyes, it's somebody

that you're suspicious of in terms of whether or not

they're being truly honest about the extent of their

injuries. Is that -- have I stated it about right?

Yes?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 9: (Nodding head up

and down.)

MR. EDWARDS: And another thing you'll hear

us do is we'll have you answer out loud so that the

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


41

court reporter can get it down. It's hard for her to

take a nod of the head.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 9: Yes.

MR. EDWARDS: So Mr. Benavides, do you

think that that -- how will that -- you know, there's

gonna be contested evidence in this case about whether

and to the -- or to the extent of the injuries in this

case. And I'm wondering if this personal experience

that's going on in your life right now would cause you

to bring that suspicion into the jury box with you in

such a way that you're gonna use that suspicion against

people who bring lawsuits while you're in the jury box?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 9: I think if -- if

it's borderline, I'm definitely gonna go towards faking

rather than -- than it could actually be true.

MR. EDWARDS: Okay. So if the evidence was

all one sided that --

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 9: Well, I mean, if

a piano fell on her head, you know, I mean, come on.

MR. EDWARDS: That's right.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 9: But if it fell

right here, I might say she made it up.

MR. EDWARDS: If the evidence is gonna be

contested on the extent of injury.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


42

MR. EDWARDS: Your suspicion is very likely

-- based on your personal experience right now, it's

likely to come into play?


MR. EDWARDS: Okay. Thank you for your

answers, sir.

Mr. Miller, No. 16. You indicated that you

may have some feelings against personal injury lawsuits.

Can you expound upon that a little bit?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 16: I do own a

business and we helped a person that was in an

automobile accident a number of years ago. They

included, as apparently tend to be a great many of us

who stopped to help, and she had injuries to her neck

and back. And when they found out that I had a

business, the other ones weren't brought into that case

and we were. I don't know what we did or how we

affected that. We helped get her out of the car. If it

hadn't been for the other witnesses there, I'm sure that

they would have come after me. Extremely hard. That

provoked a question in my mind about legality of

extending or tending to extend into other people who

were there. And the other one is, my nephew is a

policeman who is right now going through a case again,

happened to show up on a domestic violence thing and he

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


43

just tumbled out of that house, drunk, and now he's

suing a great many of them into that. That just tends

to be the way it is.

MR. EDWARDS: So let's, if we can, visit

about each of those separately. I think it's fair to

say that this case doesn't involve any kind of bystander

claim.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 16: Okay.

MR. EDWARDS: Okay. It's not -- there's no

lawsuit being brought against somebody who stopped to

render aid or anything like that. It sounded like there

was something -- and I'm just testing the water here,

Okay? I'm -- this is one of those areas where I want to

test the water with you a little bit. I'm not trying to

put words in your mouth, so stop me if I do. It sounded

like when you started that answer with, "I'm a business

owner," where I first went, before I heard the rest of

it was, and these personal injury lawsuits affect us

businesses. Anything about that for you?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 16: Oh, absolutely.

Had I not owned a business, I doubt seriously I would

have been pursued in that case. That consequently does

leave a bad taste, and as I said, I feel that it's a

tendency for many lawyers to pursue as many pockets as

available. That's -- may or may not be true, but that

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


44

was the case in this situation. It's ridiculous that it

tends to be that way.

MR. EDWARDS: If there are claims in this

case against both a driver and a company, how will these

things that you're talking about impact you as a juror

if you were sitting on the case?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 16: That's an

interesting question, because we haven't heard the case,

and consequently, it's impossible for me to give you an

answer. At what fault was the driver and at what fault

was the vehicle? What part of the vehicle was wrong,

right, correct, what was damaged in the process? I

can't answer that question. Do I feel that there's --

do I feel that you're pursuing this because of this,

yes, so absolutely.

MR. EDWARDS: All right. So as you step --

as you sit here today, if the jury -- if the Judge

called you to sit in the jury box, you would enter that

jury box with that preconceived notion about this

lawsuit?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 16: I would be lying

if I said I would not sit there with a preconceived

notion.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


45

MR. EDWARDS: Thank you. And again, for

the record, if I missed it, we're visiting with

Mr. Miller who is No. 16.

The lawsuit involving your son, the

policeman --

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 16: My nephew.

MR. EDWARDS: Your nephew, I'm sorry. Is

that an ongoing case? Is it currently ongoing, do you

know?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 16: Actually, at

Thanksgiving they were discussing the issue. And it

seems at this point it's just in dialogue --

MR. EDWARDS: Do you know --

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 16: Neither the

attorneys have made a decision to pursue it, nor has it

been dropped.

MR. EDWARDS: Okay.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 16: It's just

sitting in limbo.


PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 16: It looks like

this case doesn't deal with that issue. I guess that's

not relevant.

MR. EDWARDS: Doesn't involve police

officers or no police officers involved here -- is sued

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


46

here.

Okay. Let me come now -- and Mr. Miller,

thank you.

Number 21, is it Mr. Gaspar?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 21: Yes, sir.

MR. EDWARDS: So I think I know what your

answer is gonna be based on your prior answer, but let

me just go ahead and ask you. What is it -- what's your

reasoning, what's your thinking about you may have a

feeling against personal injury lawsuits?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 21: As you noticed

earlier, I really don't have any personal experience

like other jurors have said. It's just like, if you

note earlier, when you called row by row, I didn't put

my card until you said this is your second chance. So I

sat like in limbo, it's in my mind. It's like, am I

gonna be bias or not because of what I was thinking

before. And if I look at myself sitting down there, you

know, I think I won't be -- I won't be fair because of

what I thought about personal injury lawyers.


PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 21: So that's why I

picked my card up again.

MR. EDWARDS: All right. And I gotta self

disclose here. My wife thinks I need hearing aids, and

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


47

I'm just too vain to go get them. Did you say that you

will be fair and you'll set aside the bias or you won't

be fair?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 21: I'm thinking I

won't be fair at this point.

MR. EDWARDS: All right. And now you

realize I'm gonna have to go home and tell my wife you

may be right.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 21: Nothing against

lawyers, it's nothing against personal injury lawyers.

MR. CHAVES: I think all wives tell their

husbands that. My wife does it too.

MR. EDWARDS: Let's see. The next one I

have is No. 37, Mr. Horowitz. And again, I think you've

shared a little bit, but if you will, go ahead and with

respect to your feelings against personal injury

lawsuits, can you tell what those are and expound on

that a little bit?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 37: I just feel like

generally, a big name in a civil case like this is

supposed to be, and unless there's some criminal

negligence involved, then everybody should take care of

their own problems. They go on and on and they

advertise on TV, these big awards and everything and the

person ends up with hardly anything after all the

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


48

expenses and so on and so forth. It's a big scam, I

think. I told your dad that one day too. You might

have been in the courtroom. And I have a nephew that's

an ambulance chaser too, but you know, that's his

choice.

MR. EDWARDS: Sure. It sounds like you've

got pretty strong feelings about this.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 37: Yeah, I do.

Good, bad, or otherwise, it's true.

MR. EDWARDS: Yeah. It sounds like that

you if were placed in the jury box in this case, those

feelings -- those strong feelings are gonna go with you?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 37: Probably.

MR. EDWARDS: And it would probably impact

your decision in the case. Yes?


MR. EDWARDS: All right. Mr. Horowitz,

thank you.

And then, we'll come over to No. 41, and is

it Ms. --

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 41: Canales.

MR. EDWARDS: I had a legal assistant write

my names down and I can't read her handwriting.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 41: Okay. It's

Canales.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


49

MR. EDWARDS: Oh, it's Canales?


MR. EDWARDS: That's what -- you know, if

she had written Canales I could have read that.

And by the way, that legal assistant is not

in here with me, so. Ms. Canales, you indicated that you

may have some feelings against lawsuits, personal injury

lawsuits?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 41: Yes. Several

years ago, I served, I guess as a juror on a jury trial

and, involving a car and a woman getting hit from

behind. She represented herself, which obviously, was

her choice. And so everything was discussed and all the

evidence and information was brought forth, and she used

things to play on your emotions. And again, she

represented herself so at that point, it bothered me

that she went there with that. It makes me sort of bias

to personal injury situations, depending on what they

are, and how they're brought forth. And that was my

only comment on personal injury lawsuits.

MR. EDWARDS: Okay. You know, this --

Mr. Miller had a great point a minute ago which is we

don't know what the evidence is gonna be in this case.


MR. EDWARDS: And it's not -- it's really

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


50

not -- the -- this process is not the process where we

start to introduce evidence. For that matter, we talk

very little about the evidence, if at all in this

process. And so I know it's difficult sometimes to talk

about these things in a, you know, outside the evidence.

And that's one reason that we lawyers pry into this some

is because if there's the potential for that kind of

bias showing up in the jury box, we need to know about

that potential ahead of time. Because if halfway during

the trial you go, oh, this is -- my bias is just kicking

me right now, it's too late. We don't get to stop at

halftime --


MR. EDWARDS: -- and re-ask these

questions. So I'm asking you now, you know, only you

can look honestly into your heart and decide whether you

can set aside those feelings that you may have against

personal injury lawsuits, and have this case, if you're

on the jury, decided only on the evidence. And the

question, of course, the Judge brought this up, you

know, it's a matter of being that impartial juror -- and

part of that impartial piece is that strong feelings or

strong opinions that we bring into the jury box with us

are not supposed to form part of our decision.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


51

MR. EDWARDS: And so, you know, all I can

do is just lay it out there for you and let you answer.

You know, you have to be sure the bias won't play a part

in my decision or the bias may play a part -- may play a

part.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 41: I mean,

truthfully, it may play a part.

MR. EDWARDS: Okay.

THE COURT: I'm sorry, I did not hear that.

MR. EDWARDS: Did you say --

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 41: I said

truthfully, it might play a part.

MR. EDWARDS: Ms. Canales, thank you.

Yes, No. 12.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 12: I should have

spoken up earlier, but I'm afraid I would be biased.

MR. EDWARDS: And tell us about that.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 12: Because we were

recently in a car accident and there were more people in

the car. And I know for a fact that there was two not

wearing seat belts. Everybody claimed an injury which

we hit only the driver's side. So everyone in the car

went to a personal injury lawyer. And from what I

understand, it was a pretty big payout. And I know for

a fact none of those other people on the passenger's

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


52

side were injured.

MR. EDWARDS: All right. And for the

record, we're visiting with Ms. Arias who is No. 12.

And Ms. Arias, it sounds like -- I mean,

you said it, if you go into this jury box, you're gonna

have a bias against the people bringing the lawsuit. Is

that right?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 12: Yes, I will.

MR. EDWARDS: Okay. And that was a "yes"?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 12: Yes, I would.

MR. EDWARDS: Okay. I was just making sure

that it was loud enough for the court reporter to hear.

Thank you. And Ms. Arias, thank you for sitting there

and letting it percolate up and then raising your card

up. I really appreciate that.

So let me go back to No. 42 now.

Mr. Valdez.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 42: Yes. I have a

cousin who is a police officer. Depending on the case,

I may be bias also --

THE REPORTER: Sir, can you speak up,

please? I'm having a hard time hearing you, sir.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 42: Depending on the

case, I guess I may be biased, I'm not sure. We need to

hear more evidence.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


53

MR. EDWARDS: Okay.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 42: I do have a

brother that is a police officer.

MR. EDWARDS: All right. So you have a

brother who's a police officer?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 42: And a cousin.

MR. EDWARDS: Has he been sued or has he

been involved in lawsuits?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 42: No, no.

MR. EDWARDS: So is that -- when you say

that you may have feelings against personal injury

lawsuits, is the only reason for those feelings that

your brother is a police officer?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 42: It's a cousin,

but --

MR. EDWARDS: Oh, I'm sorry, a cousin.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 42: -- but I've been

in a couple of car accidents before obviously, me and my

wife, we still have unpaid medical bills from the

lawyer, still need to be taken care of, so.

MR. EDWARDS: So you've had a -- it sounds

like you've had a prior experience with bringing a claim

yourself?


MR. EDWARDS: And your lawyer that

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


54

represented you that you say that afterwards you were

still having to pay medical bills?


MR. EDWARDS: And it sounds like that left

a bad taste in your mouth for personal injury lawsuits?


MR. EDWARDS: If the Judge were to place

you in the jury box to decide this case, I'm wondering,

will your distaste for personal injury lawsuits arising

out of your personal experience, is that going to cause

you -- as you go into that jury box, is it gonna have

you feeling that -- is the plaintiff, the person

bringing the lawsuit, is she gonna be starting behind,

so to speak, when you -- if you entered the jury box?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 42: I believe so,

sir. Yes, sir.

MR. EDWARDS: And as you listen to

conflicting evidence, do you think that this bias that

you're talking about, do you think that that bias would

stay with you in the jury box and as you heard

conflicting evidence coming from the two different

sides, that the bias would cause you to lean more

towards the defendant's side of the evidence?


MR. EDWARDS: Mr. Valdez, thank you.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


55

So now we come back to 47, Mr. Dodson.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 47: Yes, sir. My

family farms and we also have an interest in a trucking

company. And we, both the farm and the trucking

company, have had personal injury lawsuits against them.

One was hit while it was parked and they sued us and got

a settlement. And the other one was a slow moving

vehicle that was rear-ended and we got -- we had to pay

part of that settlement as well. And you know, in

having that experience and being raised around that type

of situation could have an influence on how I might see

something.

MR. EDWARDS: All right. And so if there

is conflicting evidence in this case about what

happened, about what the injuries are, and you've got a

trucking company on one side, and Theresa Gamez bringing

the case on the other side, that experience that you're

talking about --

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 47: Might have some

influence on how I see things.

MR. EDWARDS: All right. And it sounds

like this is a long-held -- a long-held belief on your

part?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 47: Yeah, just, you

know, I've seen the lawsuit abuse personally and not

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


56

only that, but my family's been sued. It was a personal

suit and it left a bitter taste in my mouth.

MR. EDWARDS: Yeah, and it sounds like it

would be hard for you to, like me and the German

Shepherd.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 47: Yeah, it would

be a little difficult to be impartial.

MR. EDWARDS: Yeah.

Mr. Dodson. Thank you. Where do you all

farm?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 47: Chapman Ranch.

MR. EDWARDS: Okay.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 47: We have a cotton

sorghum out there.

MR. EDWARDS: Sure.

Let's move to No. 48. Is it Ms. Moulzolf?


MR. EDWARDS: Okay. You indicated that you

may have some feelings against personal injury lawsuits?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 48: I agree with

Juror No. 37. I feel a lot of it is people are out to

make money. So they go to a personal injury lawyer.


PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 48: I was in an

accident. I was a passenger. We bumped somebody. That

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


57

person came out, we asked them if they were fine. They

answered, yes, I'm fine. We'll be fine. She turns

around and she goes to a lawyer and sues my friend who

was driving. So it left a bad taste.

MR. EDWARDS: Sure. And so you say you

agree with Mr. Horowitz who's No. 37.


MR. EDWARDS: Do you also agree with

Mr. Horowitz that you wouldn't be able to put this bias

aside and that it would influence your decision in the

case?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 48: Going through

that accident, no, I wouldn't be able to.

MR. EDWARDS: All right. And just to make

sure that everybody back here heard, did you -- you said

you would not be able to put it aside?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 48: I would not be

able to.

MR. EDWARDS: All right. Thank you.

So now I come back to this side, No. 53.

Is it Mr. Rosarius?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 53: I don't have a

personal injury situation in lawsuits, but I am very

skeptical of personal injury lawsuits. I think it's

people are out to make money. Both the attorneys and

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


58

the plaintiff. It's just -- I read a lot of papers and

read a lot of articles on it, so I'm a skeptical person.

MR. EDWARDS: All right. So you're

skeptical of it. It sounds like you have read a lot

about it and that this is a -- a strongly held belief

that you have?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 53: Yeah, I think

it's a very large payout. I feel like the system is

intended to make you whole and I think personal injury

lawsuits go to the extreme.

MR. EDWARDS: Is there a sense about you

that these lawsuits are just out of control?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 53: Absolutely.

MR. EDWARDS: And so I'll -- I need to ask

you the same thing that we've asked others. And that

is, if you are asked by the Judge to come sit in the

jury box, are those strongly held beliefs gonna go with

you into that jury box, and influence your fact finding

that may come about when there's conflicting evidence

involved?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 53: I could be very

open-minded, but I have to be honest that I am very

skeptical when it comes to these types of lawsuits.

MR. EDWARDS: All right. And when you're

honest about that skepticism, that is, it sounds like

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


59

that you're saying that you have a leaning against

Theresa Gamez who's bringing the lawsuit?


MR. EDWARDS: And it sounds like you would

have a very hard time leaving that behind, if you went

into the jury box?


MR. EDWARDS: Mr. Rosarius, thank you.

Number 54, can you say your name for me?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 54: Enderle.

MR. EDWARDS: Enderle. Great.

Mr. Enderle, you indicated that you've got some feelings

against personal injury lawsuits.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 54: Yeah, two

things. Before equitable payouts, it's kind of like

giving to a charity, you give a dollar for the charity

and 10 percent goes to the charity and then 90 percent

goes to everything in between.

The other thing is, my wife was given a

drug from a doctor that was the wrong type of drug. I

called a reputable attorney in town. It took him a day

to get back. I explained my situation to one of their

underlings, you know, and since there weren't any

injuries -- there's potential injuries, all of her

injuries, they wouldn't even touch the case. So in my

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


60

mind, I'm thinking, well since there's no injuries,

there's no money to be made so we're not even gonna

touch it. So it has to be like major injury where it's

like, okay, you've got a death and before we can even

touch it. So yeah, I don't have a lot of respect for

it.

MR. EDWARDS: All right. Again, it sounds

like these are strongly held beliefs that you have.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 54: I have an

opinion when it comes to this kind of stuff. There's no

justice. That's just the way I feel about it.

MR. EDWARDS: All right. And it -- I'm

dissecting this in my mind. It almost sounds like you

don't necessarily have a feeling against Theresa Gamez

for bringing this lawsuit, but it sounds like you may

have feelings against the lawsuit business, so to speak,

and perhaps have feelings against lawyers like me that

consider taking these lawsuits.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 54: Possibly. I

mean, if there's injury, I believe in the system -- to

take that injury to court. You know, if there's

definitely more proof from the doctor of the actual

injury, I don't have a problem with bringing a lawsuit

or a civil suit in that case. But what brings -- what

brings -- it always comes up to the top, it's always the

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


61

payout. I mean, they'll represent obviously the

defendant or the plaintiff, I guess, if they're injured,

be careful, we want to get long term, short-term care

for the rest of their life when they're injured. But by

the same token, the -- the amount goes up because

obviously, you've got to get your cut of it, you know,

that's just common knowledge. So yeah, so there's kind

of a -- I can see it both ways, but I've got a real

problem with the actual payout.

MR. EDWARDS: You say some very interesting

-- you've got some great concepts. And what I hear is a

-- that you're balancing a couple of different things in

your mind. One is your personal experience has left a

bad taste in your mouth about the -- about personal

injury lawsuits. But on the other hand, it sounds like

maybe you don't have feelings against, in this

particular instance, Theresa Gamez, for bring this

lawsuit. I don't know that.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 54: Yeah, I

obviously don't have any knowledge of what happened or

the details. We're not gonna discuss that, obviously,

right here. But yeah, going into it, like, yeah, if

you're injured, I can see that side of it. But on the

other side, how severe are the injuries? And then what

exactly are you gonna get because if it's not enough for

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


62

you personally, to take care of your personal livelihood

and your welfare of the care you need, if it's not

enough then the rates almost gonna go up because

everybody's got to get a piece of the pie.

MR. EDWARDS: All right. And so, I guess,

the bottom line question is, can you put all those

thoughts aside if they are thoughts against personal

injury lawsuits and if the Judge pulls you into the jury

box, can you put those feelings aside and decide this

case on the evidence that is presented here in the

courtroom?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 54: I don't see how

that would be possible. With the things I carry around

and the experience I've seen, read about, heard about

and experienced personally.


PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 54: I don't see -- I

don't see how a person can actually separate that.

MR. EDWARDS: And in any event, you can't

see how you yourself could separate yourself from that?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 54: No, because in

my opinion, most things are experience-based versus

reading something. You read it, it's something you

read. If you actually experience it, there's no --

there's no removing that from your mind, in your

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


63

emotions, which is who you are. You got to be a

machine.

MR. EDWARDS: So would you be -- would you

be going into the jury box with already fixed existing

opinions?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 54: Well, yeah, like

I said, I just explained it clearly. If that's part of

my experience, there's just no way to separate that.

MR. EDWARDS: Okay.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 54: So that's -- I

answered your question.

MR. EDWARDS: All right. Mr. Enderle,

thank you for your -- oh, I do have one more question.

And I might be sorry I asked this question. But with

respect to your wife -- and by the way, I hope that your

wife is doing okay.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 54: Yeah, nothing

happened. But the point was that it involved

potentially --

MR. EDWARDS: Yes. I need to ask you if it

was my law firm that you called.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 54: No, it was not.


PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 54: Would you like

to know who it was?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


64

MR. EDWARDS: Maybe --

MR. CHAVES: He did say, reputable, so it's

okay to get that out.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 54: They give away

turkeys. That's all I need to tell you.

MR. EDWARDS: Mr. Enderle, thank you.

The next one I have is No. 69, Ms. Juarez.


MR. EDWARDS: You have some feelings?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 69: Yeah, I don't

have any personal experience. I'm more like that

gentleman there. I'm just skeptical about personal

injury. I think it's abused and I would definitely have

a problem.

MR. EDWARDS: So if you go -- if you are

called by the Judge into the jury box you're gonna go

into that jury box carrying some fixed beliefs that you

come into the courtroom with and those fixed beliefs

against lawsuits will influence your decision in this

case?


MR. EDWARDS: That was a -- that was yes,

right?


MR. EDWARDS: Ms. Juarez, thank you.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


65

Number 70, Mr. Jones. You indicated -- did

you indicate that you had some feelings against personal

injury lawsuits?


MR. EDWARDS: Can you explain that to us,

please?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 70: Just a general

negative perception regarding that, not based on direct,

personal experience.

MR. EDWARDS: So I know that -- and I --

Mr. Jones, if you'll allow me to ask a few more

questions and dig a little deeper. Is that okay with

you, sir?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 70: Sure.

MR. EDWARDS: All right. So I know that --

what I absolutely want to honor what Mr. Enderle says

about, you know, when it's a personal experience, it's

there. But I also know that for a lot of people, even

outside of personal experience, when they watch what's

going on in the world around them, and there are

concerted efforts to influence public opinion about

things, one of the things where there's been a lot of

pressure inserted in the public media are things like

lawsuit abuse. We see TV commercials. We see

billboards. We see a lot of talk about lawsuit abuse.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


66

And I know that that impacts a lot of people. And so

even though people don't have any personal experience

with lawsuits, based on what they hear, they start to

form, they come in with strong fixed opinions about

personal injury lawsuits when they come into the

courtroom. And Mr. Jones, I don't know if you're one of

those people or not, but I want to make that inquiry to

you. Are you one of those people?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 70: Well, I don't if

I'm one of those people but --

MR. EDWARDS: I know, that didn't sound

very good, did it? Will you allow me to ask that

question again because that was a really poor question?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 70: Well, no, I can

respond. The bias is there. I need to be honest about

that. That's not to say I would like to think that bias

could be overcome by careful consideration of the facts,

and -- but nevertheless, it's there.


PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 70: And I'm a big

fan of tort reform.

MR. EDWARDS: You are? Okay.

THE COURT: I'm sorry, a big fan of what?

MR. CHAVES: Tort reform.

MR. EDWARDS: Tort reform.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


67

THE COURT: Got it.

MR. EDWARDS: So it sounds like you do come

in with some strong fixed beliefs about tort reform and

lawsuit abuse. Yes?


MR. EDWARDS: And it sounds like they --

they may very well go with you into the jury box, if

you're put in the jury box.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 70: I would like to

believe that it wouldn't and I could be fair and

impartial, but I wouldn't know until I got there.

MR. EDWARDS: All right. So you can't tell

us for sure today that it won't affect you?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 70: Correct.

MR. EDWARDS: Mr. Jones, thank you for your

answers.

So let me come back here and I'm -- I --

let me speak up real quick. Whenever I refer to "those

people", that was a very poor choice of words on my

part. I honor -- I really do want to honor everybody's

opinion, and you know, I have close friends -- I've got

close friends who just don't like what I do and we still

have dinner together. I wish to honor every -- I know

that every one of you, every one of you have got your

individual opinions. And I honor each and every

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


68

individual opinion that you hold. And all I'm trying to

do is to fulfill my responsibility to Theresa Gamez, to

find out if there are people who may have feelings

against her case going into the jury box. And I hope I

don't step on my tail and cause any kind of thought that

I'm being disrespectful. And if I do that by accident,

please, first call me on it, and then accept my apology

for it.

And you guys, you guys are doing great. If

I may step back to my cherry pie for a minute. You

know, my mother is a good southern girl. She was raised

a good southern girl. And she taught all of us in our

family that you shouldn't say something in front of

somebody that's gonna hurt their feelings. Now, the

movies say, unless you say, bless your heart first. But

you know, if we go back to that cherry pie example, if I

was called out to be the judge and I don't like cherry

pie, I would hear my mother's voice saying, you can't

say anything about not liking cherry pie because there's

a lady right there who just baked a cherry pie. But

it's important that I overcome that social rule and

speak out to let the contestants know that I've got a

distaste for cherry pie if I'm gonna be the judge. You

guys are doing a great job of it and I just wanted to

throw that -- I wanted to throw that into the mix.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


69

So let's come now to No. 73, is it

Mr. Gerloff?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 73: Gerloff.

MR. EDWARDS: And you indicated that you

had some feelings against personal injury lawsuits?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 73: Yes, I do. I

just -- I believe it's -- I would have personal issues

with being in the jury box.

MR. EDWARDS: And can you expound on that

just a little bit?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 73: Well, like the

rest of everyone says, it's gotten out of hand. It's

really not something that I want to participate in, if

you want to know the truth about it. I don't want any

part of it because I just don't feel it's right.


like you've got some strong fixed opinions about the

subject?


MR. EDWARDS: It sounds, Mr. Gerloff, like

if the Judge asked you to step into the jury box, that

those strong --


MR. EDWARDS: -- feelings would go with

you; yes?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


70

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 73: Correct, sir.

MR. EDWARDS: And you wouldn't be able to

put them aside and decide the case just on the evidence?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 73: I don't believe

so.

MR. EDWARDS: All right. Mr. Gerloff,

thank you for your answers.

(Inaudible response.)

THE REPORTER: Can you repeat what you

said? I didn't get -- what did you say?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 73: I said bless

your heart.

THE REPORTER: Thank you.

MR. EDWARDS: Next No. 75, Mr. Mendoza?


MR. EDWARDS: You indicated you've got some

beliefs or some feelings against personal injury

lawsuits?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 75: Yes. Well, I

said off to do that, and I've also been with the Corpus

Christi Fire Department for 17 years. I've worked fire

and rescue for six and a half years of that. I've seen

a lot of injuries, pulled out a lot of people out of

cars, or a burned car, whatever. You see no evidence of

any -- any damage whatsoever and yet, you know, we're

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


71

packing people left and right, four people in a car

that's five miles an hour, or less, and you know, and

you're thinking really, you know, doing it -- we're

doing it, it's our job to take care of everybody. But I

see that. But then I see the other extreme of it of

where we're tearing up a car because somebody's really,

really hurt and -- and you know, I guess just depending

on how it's going in, I feel biased in that sense that

as soon as I see something that's gonna be like, oh, you

know, really, and that's what my point is on that.

MR. EDWARDS: All right. Mr. Mendoza, I

appreciate you speaking up. It sounds like based on

these personal experiences that you have on a daily

basis -- not daily -- weekly basis in your employment as

a firefighter, and you were talking about responding to

the likes of automobile wrecks, right?


MR. EDWARDS: I think our firefighters are

also paramedics?


MR. EDWARDS: So our firefighters are the

first responders when it comes to the EMS?


MR. EDWARDS: And it sounds like based on

your personal experience and you're witnessing these

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


72

things that, if I read what you were saying correctly,

it is -- you think that people may be right there at the

scene starting to exaggerate what their injuries may be?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 75: They're seeing

dollar signs.

MR. EDWARDS: Seeing dollar signs.

So the question of course is that, first of

all, it sounds like this is a strong belief, a strong

fixed opinion that you come in with?


MR. EDWARDS: It is?


MR. EDWARDS: And of course the question

is, if the Judge puts you in the jury box, is that

strong fixed opinion gonna go with you and influence

your decision in the case?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 75: After so many

years seeing it, yes, sir.

MR. EDWARDS: All right. After so many

years, yes. Is that right?


MR. EDWARDS: All right. Mr. Mendoza,

thank you for your answers.

The next one I have is No. 78, Mr. -- is it

Stancher?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


73


MR. EDWARDS: Mr. Stancher, you indicated

that you may have some feelings against personal injury

lawsuits?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 78: Well, I agree

with the gentleman who was expressing their -- his

opinion. And I know people who make a living in this.

I know people also that got the short end of the payoff.


PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 78: They're gonna

tell you honestly, when you turn on TV, what do you see?

Who's the big advertisers in town here? And the fault's

on both sides because these folks, they like their

money. They're gonna collect it off of everything, take

from the insurance company or whoever. So I think it's

become a racket from both sides. Nothing personal,

guys, nothing at all personal. But it's become a money

maker and it's all out of control.

MR. EDWARDS: It sounds like you just don't

like this system at all and it's, as you just said, it's

out of control.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 78: It is out of

control. I know people who make a living out of this.

MR. EDWARDS: Sure.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 78: I happen to ride

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


74

a motorcycle and I know folks who have been in

accidents, not been injured, but boy, it's -- the

payment is gonna come. So, the other guys here, with

this -- I can't remember who there is in town that

defends motorcyclists, and they're at every motorcycle

rally. It's just become a lottery.

MR. EDWARDS: Sure. Mr. Stancher, it

sounds like you come in with some very strong, fixed

opinions?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 78: Oh, I have

strong opinions.

MR. EDWARDS: They're --

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 78: Strong opinions.

MR. EDWARDS: -- strong opinions.

If the Judge were to pull you into the jury

box, it sounds like those very strong opinions would go

with you, you would not be putting them aside. Is that

right?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 78: Well, I can see

evidence from both sides if -- frankly, the other side

can say, I've been involved with even doctors who are

paid off, bought off. There's fraud all the way around.

MR. EDWARDS: Mr. Stancher, do you want to

have anything to do with this?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 78: That's up to

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


75

you, but probably not. I'm just being honest.

MR. EDWARDS: And boy, do I absolutely

appreciate the honesty. I mean, it's really -- that's

really what this is about.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 78: I don't have a

dog in this fight.

MR. EDWARDS: Yeah.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 78: But I've read

enough about it to realize it's become a problem in this

country.

MR. EDWARDS: Mr. Stancher, it sounds like

if you go into the jury box that my client, Theresa

Gamez, can probably think that you go into it with the

feeling against her case?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 78: That's a crap

shoot you're gonna have to take.

MR. EDWARDS: All right. And that's what

it would be with you is a crap shoot?


MR. EDWARDS: Yes?


MR. EDWARDS: All right. Probably so. And

by crap shoot, do -- look, we can't put -- we -- here's

what we cannot do --

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 78: My skepticism is

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


76

the evidence I've seen in these trials. I mean, they --

you always drag in -- each side brings in a doctor or

whoever it is, that will convince a jury or convince a

prospective jury that they've got a hurt back. In the

very end I suspect most juries say, oh, well, maybe they

deserve a reward here. They're tired of watching three

weeks of trial, four weeks of trial. There's just been

some phenomenal settlements in this country on this

stuff. I think it's just gotten well out of hand.

MR. EDWARDS: All right. Mr. Stancher,

thank you very much.

Next is No. 79, is it Ms. Shea?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 79: Shea.

MR. EDWARDS: Shea.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 79: Like Shea

Stadium.

MR. EDWARDS: Oh, of course.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 79: There you go.

MR. EDWARDS: So you indicated that you may

have some feelings against personal injury lawsuits?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 79: Yes. I think

your potential Juror No. 70 articulated it the best. I

agree with him and I think there should be tort reform.

I think the settlements are outrageous. I have a huge

bias against personal injury cases.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


77


like that's going into the jury box with you if you were

put there?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 79: Yes, but you

know, if more of us would go into the jury box maybe the

settlements would go down.

MR. EDWARDS: So --

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 79: Right?

MR. EDWARDS: So --

MR. CHAVES: Speechless.

MR. BLANCO: I did not hear you.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 79: You want me to

repeat it?

MR. BLANCO: I did not hear you, ma'am.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 79: I said, if more

of us with a bias against large settlements would go

into the jury box, perhaps the settlements would go

down.

MR. BLANCO: I agree.

MR. EDWARDS: Yes. Here's what concerns

me, is that if you go into the jury box, you're going in

with a very strong fixed opinion?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 79: Which is why I

said I have a problem.

MR. EDWARDS: All right. And you're not

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


78

gonna --

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 79: I'm being

honest.

MR. EDWARDS: Oh, I tell you, Ms. Shea,

thank you very much for your honesty. I appreciate it.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 79: You're gonna

pick me anyway.

MR. CHAVES: Hang in there.

MR. EDWARDS: Finally, No. 80, Mr. Nunez.


MR. EDWARDS: You indicated that you've got

a bias -- I'm sorry, you've got some feelings against

personal injury lawsuits?


Because nowadays it's more about the cash and less about

the pain. They all want like a real big, big check and

less about the pain, you know. They all want big bucks.

MR. EDWARDS: Yeah.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 80: And the pain is

not that much, but they want a big lump sum.

MR. EDWARDS: Sounds like this is a strong,

fixed opinion that you come in with.


MR. EDWARDS: If you were put in the jury

box by the Judge, are you gonna take that strong, fixed

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


79

opinion with you into the jury box?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 80: I think I would.

But I would have to listen to both sides and see what --

where what happened. I don't know.

MR. EDWARDS: Sure. Sir, remember the

German Shepherd I was talking about?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 80: Gary?

MR. EDWARDS: You know, that German

Shepherd, I said that I couldn't be a good juror in a

case involving a German Shepherd that bit somebody

because if I heard conflicting evidence, I know where I

would go. And if I was sitting out here being

questioned by a lawyer, I could say, well, you know, it

depends on how the evidence goes. But if I look

honestly into my heart, I will tell you that the dog is

starting off behind in this lawsuit, and if I hear

anything that confirms what I believe about that dog,

I'm gonna hold it against the dog. Do you understand

what I'm saying?


and down.)

MR. EDWARDS: Mr. Nunez, it sounds like you

are coming in with a strong, fixed opinion about

somebody who brings a personal injury lawsuit and until

you're shown otherwise, that bias is gonna be there with

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


80

you.


MR. EDWARDS: All right. Thank you,

Mr. Nunez.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 80: Thank you.

MR. EDWARDS: So we've been dancing around

this next question some. I guess I could do a quick

market survey real quick. How many of you have seen me

or my law firm, the Edwards Law Firm on TV?

(A show of hands.)

MR. EDWARDS: Pretty much --

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 20: What was the

question, sir?

MR. EDWARDS: Pretty much everybody.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 20: What was the

question? I didn't hear it.

MR. EDWARDS: Oh, who here has seen me or

my law firm on TV advertised?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 20: What was your

name?

MR. EDWARDS: I'm Billy Edwards and the law

firm is the Edwards Law Firm. So pretty much everybody.

Anybody here not seen me or my law firm on

the TV? All right. I'm gonna report this.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 30: I just moved

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


81

from California, so I don't watch the news, TV.

MR. BLANCO: Someone from California.

Great.

MR. EDWARDS: I'm gonna report that five

people haven't seen us. So --

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 16: Sue your

advertiser.

MR. EDWARDS: Sue my advertiser.

So look, you know, my father has been in

business for 50 years here. He came to Corpus Christi

in 1958. He was the first lawyer to, in town, to limit

his practice to personal injury -- representing injured

people in personal injury lawsuits. And he started that

in 1963. The hardest decision that he ever made was the

decision to go up on TV. He fought lawyer advertising

on TV until the U.S. Supreme Court said, you can't fight

it anymore and the Bar had to relent and let us go up on

TV.

Now, that may be a great story that I carry

with me. But what I need to know is, the fact that you

see me advertising on TV, you see my father advertising

on TV, and you see our law firm advertising on TV, I

need to know if that's going to affect Theresa Gamez and

her case here in this courtroom. Anybody have a problem

with the fact that standing in front of you is a TV

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


82

advertising lawyer? Number 54.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 54: You can't

separate your face from being in TV. It's all over the

place.

MR. EDWARDS: Okay. So No. 54, that was --

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 54: Enderle.

MR. EDWARDS: -- Mr. Enderle, thank you. I

saw 12. And before I come to you, Mr. Enderle, will

that -- the fact that I'm up on TV, does that impact a

decision that you might render in this case?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 54: Probably 90

percent chance that it will.

MR. EDWARDS: All right. And then No. 12,

Ms. Arias. You indicated that you might have a problem

with the TV advertisement?


and down.)

MR. EDWARDS: Yes?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 12: Yeah, because

one of the commercials you aired on TV, I actually took

care of one of the little people that was --

MR. EDWARDS: Oh, okay.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 12: -- on the

commercial.

MR. EDWARDS: And you just don't care for

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


83

that kind of thing?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 12: No, I don't.

MR. EDWARDS: And will that affect -- the

fact that I'm up on TV advertising and seeing this

particular commercial that you're referring to, sounds

like that would influence your decision in this case?


and down.)

MR. EDWARDS: Yes?


MR. EDWARDS: Anybody else? And I gotta

tell you, when I sit down to watch an NFL football game,

I'm flipping channels, when I see my competitors up

there, you know. And I flip it even faster when I see

my own.

Anybody else that, you know, that has a

problem with, you got a TV advertising lawyer standing

in front of you?



Judge, may I ask, I think I noted the time.

Did I start at 10:00?

THE COURT: No. You started at 10:55.

MR. EDWARDS: Oh, at 10:55.

THE COURT: Am I correct on that?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


84

MR. CHAVES: 10:55.

THE COURT: Yeah, 10:55.

MR. EDWARDS: Oh, okay.

THE COURT: I probably will break in about

-- when you've gone an hour and a half.

MR. EDWARDS: Okay.

THE COURT: So that will be about 11:25 --

12:25.

MR. EDWARDS: So about another 15 minutes.

THE COURT: Yeah.

MR. EDWARDS: All right. So, let me -- the

Judge spoke to you about -- oh, and I'm -- Mr. Hinojosa,

I thought I saw you nodding your head in agreement with

some people that were talking about their experiences

and what have you, with personal injury lawsuits. And I

meant to circle back around to you and ask, are you

still good with your original answer?


MR. EDWARDS: All right. You can set it

aside?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 4: Yes, I can still

set it aside.

MR. EDWARDS: All right. I just wanted to

touch base with you on that.

So the Judge -- Judge Watts spoke about she

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


85

gives the law and the jury becomes the fact finder. And

it's important that the jurors be comfortable not only

with the parties and the subject matter, but there --

that the jury is also comfortable with the law, and that

they will be able to actually follow the law, in certain

respects. So one of those respects is the type of

damages, what we call, damages. And damages,

essentially, is a legal word for a measurement of

injury.

The law provides for different types of

damages flowing from a personal injury. Now, some are

called -- we refer to them as actual economic damage.

And what that means is, it is something where you're

mostly talking about dollars out-of-pocket, medical

expense, lost wages and what we call, loss of wage

earning capacity, the ability to get and keep

employment. Which of you, if any, have any kind of

problem or feelings against the award of full economic

damages? Medical expenses, and wages and lost wage

earning capacity? Any problems there?


MR. EDWARDS: And if it is shown -- if the

evidence shows that those economic damages are large, do

we all agree that the compensation for these economic

damages should be complete, even if it's a large amount?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


86

Yes, ma'am?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 5: Can you define

"large?"

MR. EDWARDS: You know, large is a, like

beauty, in the eyes of the beholder. But that's a very

good question. And here's the thing. We don't want to

get into the specific evidence of -- on any given

particular point. And I guess what I'm looking for --

and let me get, for the record, I'm visiting with No. 5,

Ms. Torres, right?

My question right now has to do with these

economic damages and whether you consider -- whether you

as an individual consider them small or large, are you

open to considering the full amount of economic damages

even if it's something that you call, large?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 5: Yeah.

MR. EDWARDS: You're okay with that?


MR. EDWARDS: All right. Anybody else have

a question or a concern about full economic damages?

Yes, sir, No. 10.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 10: Actually, I

guess I should have spoken up earlier, but I had, I

guess, two personal incidents, one where I was driving a

standard truck and my foot slipped off the clutch and I

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


87

rear-ended a lady and her son. She was in her mid to

late 50's, he was in his 30's. They denied ambulance

services and everything and everybody went their own

ways. And then three or four months later I was getting

sued. And I think they settled out of court for like

$750 bucks.

The second one was, my wife was giving a

prescription, she was having a lot of morning sickness

when she was pregnant and of course, that advertisement

came out on TV that if any women that were nursing were

given this, you know, prescription or drug, and had any

birth defects, that they could, you know, call this

number and you know, money was given out, pretty much.

And my daughter was born with a heart murmur and is

getting better and she's fine, there's nothing wrong,

but I just feel that in a personal injury, if it's not a

very serious injury, don't abuse it. But if you are

injured, you know, pursue it, that's fine. But like in

mine, as long as my daughter's healthy, that's all that

matters to me. I'm not going to go out and find -- try

to get a settlement of 3.8 million or whatever else is

advertised on TV. But I mean, if the evidence is good,

yeah, I'm for it. But if it's just, you know, a simple

oh, I had a little bit of neck pain or something and

they're making it into a $10 million dollar suit, well,

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


88

I'm against that, you know.

MR. EDWARDS: Okay. Mr. Amaya, thank you

for sharing that with us. I appreciate that.

Now, and you did that in response to my

question about economic damages. Was that -- were you

just raising your hand going, you know what, maybe I

ought to talk about --


MR. EDWARDS: -- what we were talking about

a little earlier?


MR. EDWARDS: All right. Thank you for

that. Anything about that, about your experience there,

such that if you went into this jury box, you would take

a fixed opinion with you, a strong, fixed opinion into

the jury box that we -- that this side, the plaintiff's

side, would have to overcome?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 10: No, I don't

think so.


PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 10: Because I mean,

if there was serious -- my daughter had serious health

issues, I'd just expect for the, maybe the hospital

bills to be paid and after that, you know, I'm fine with

that.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


89


PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 10: But, no I don't

have any fixed opinion. I'm very open-minded to both

sides, and what's fair is fair and it's black and white.

MR. EDWARDS: Mr. Amaya, thank you.

Number 16, Mr. Miller, I think you raised

your hand about the economic?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 16: I have a

question. Are you talking specifically medical and

physical compensation, or are you including damages as

well?

MR. EDWARDS: Like mental anguish damages,

is that what you're getting to?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 16: Is that

including all compensation?

MR. EDWARDS: No, I'm talking right now

about -- what I'm trying to do is break it into two

parts.


MR. EDWARDS: And the first part that I'm

-- was going to visit with you about is what we call

economic damages, that is, it's kind of like dollars out

of the pocket.


MR. EDWARDS: Medical expense, both past

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


90

and future, and lost wages in the past and lost of wage

earning capacity.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 16: Right, okay.

MR. EDWARDS: You're okay with those?


MR. EDWARDS: Even if it's -- if the

evidence showed that that's a large amount, and that the

person was entitled to those, and large being large in

your mind, you would be okay with awarding the full

amount of those economic damages?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 16: If she was due

the compensation, absolutely.


PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 16: If it's a

medical bill and everything is agreed.

MR. EDWARDS: Good. Thank you.

Did I see some other?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 45: I just have a

question.

MR. EDWARDS: Yes. Number 45.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 45: With you asking

the question the way it is, it's not an option for us to

agree to less than that amount that you're gonna present

for economical damages.

MR. EDWARDS: Here's -- and you're

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


91

Ms. Spear?


MR. EDWARDS: Okay. Here's the question

that I'm trying to get to. If the jury -- the jury will

be asked about economic damages. And there will be

evidence about the economic damages. And there -- there

may be conflicting evidence, you know, we've put on some

evidence of what the economic loss is, you know, medical

bills in the past and future, and wages in the past and

loss of wage earning capacity in the past and in the

future, these things that we call, economic damages.

And the defense may very well put on some evidence that

contradicts it, you know, that they say, you know, the

evidence that they put on is too much. Look, the jury

is perfectly capable and asked to weigh that conflicting

evidence and come to a decision about what is the proper

amount.

So the question that I'm trying to get to

is this: If you come to a decision about what the

proper amount is, and then you look at it and go, oh,

man, that's a large amount, we need to reduce it. Do

you see what I'm talking -- do you see the difference

I'm talking about? It's one thing to make a decision

based on the evidence, even if it's conflicting

evidence, but it's another thing to look at the final

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


92

product and go, oh, wait, that's just too large to give

in a personal injury lawsuit.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 45: I think I have

some bias only because I feel like there's a team behind

your team, you know, that you send them to the doctor.

You send them to therapy, therapy, therapy, therapy, you

know. Yeah, all that gets elevated. Those costs get

elevated. So you'll be able to show that, but in real

life, if that person that was injured did it on their

own, without your team of teams, that -- that cost

wouldn't be that cost.

MR. EDWARDS: And Ms. Spear, I certainly

appreciate you bringing this important point up. And it

sounds like -- it sounds like you come in with a belief

that -- about, you know, this team of teams that you're

talking about. And you come in with a fixed opinion.

No?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 45: I don't.

MR. EDWARDS: You don't?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 45: If I'm gonna get

to hear both sides of the story, I'm not fixed either

way. I just wanted to ask that question, if there's

going to be a point where we could agree on a lesser --

not that it's too big, but just that there's gonna be --

MR. EDWARDS: So here's -- generally --

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


93

generally, this is what we're trying to -- what I'm

trying to get to. Our evidence on this side may be, you

know, economic damages, the medical expenses, the future

medical expense is this much. And the defense may put

on evidence that says, you know, she's got some economic

damage here, but what they're asking for in the future

is too much, it really ought to be this much. Now, it

is possible for the jury to just reject it all because

the jury is -- the jury has got an amazing amount of

discretion. But generally speaking, the -- if a

decision is gonna be based on the evidence and there's

gonna be an award of economic damages, generally, it's

gonna be between this high point and this lower point

somewhere in here.

MR. CHAVES: Your Honor, we are gonna

object to that interpretation. The evidence must be

based on the credible evidence, whatever the jury

believes.

THE COURT: Let me see if I can explain it.

MR. CHAVES: They don't have to do it

between --

THE COURT: I think you're getting to the

fact of the weight and value, okay? You're going to

hear evidence from the plaintiff's side and you're gonna

hear evidence from the defense side. And you're going

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


94

-- you may hear conflicting evidence as to what those

economic damages are. All right. You, as a jury, are

then going to give weight and value to what you heard

from the witnesses that gave you the testimony with

regards to those economic damages. When you're in that

jury room, that's what the deliberations are all about.

You're gonna share your ideas on how much weight to give

this witness, and how much value to put on this

evidence, and then you come out with a consensus,

hopefully, okay, as to what that is.


THE COURT: But the law is not gonna tell

you, you must do this with regards to filling in the

blanks on damages, all right?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 54: Can I ask you a

question in mind, Judge?

THE COURT: Yes.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 54: I've done some

reading on the definition of a jury. And I don't where

it changed, and I haven't figured out where it changed

from, but a jury used to mean a jury of your peers. And

your peer was actually somebody who knows the defendant

and their character and knows the plaintiff and their

character. When did that all change?

THE COURT: We went to random selection.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


95

You can -- you can know the plaintiff. As I said, you

can know them. The question is, is would that knowledge

or that relationship prevent you from being fair to both

sides.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 54: Well, they can

do their character, it would be fair, is what I'm

getting at.

THE COURT: Well, it may or may not be.

Some people have some very strong opinions and strong

biases.


THE COURT: Okay. It is 12:25. Yes, sir?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 4: I have one more

question since we're on medical and stuff like that. If

we have a personal medical issue, do I just talk to you

about that or do I just say it or?

THE COURT: I'm gonna break everybody and

if you have that, we will stay and listen to that, okay?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 4: All right.

THE COURT: All right. But everybody needs

to have a lunch at this point. It is 12:25. I'm gonna

ask you to be back at 1:45. Now that gives you a little

longer than an hour, but not quite an hour and a half.

I will tell you that there is a food court at the

American Bank Plaza building that has about six or seven

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


96

cuisines. There's various places. You may leave the

courthouse, but I need you back on time. Because we

will sit here waiting for everybody to come in, and then

the last one that comes in 20 minutes late gets to do

the walk of shame, okay? So, please be courteous of

everybody's time.

By the way, we are not gonna break for the

day and bring all this panel back. We are gonna get

this jury today so we will work until we get a jury, all

right? All right. Be careful. Keep your numbers so

that you can come back hopefully in front of the line.

(Jury panel exits courtroom for recess.)

(The following are discussions outside

other members of the jury panel.)

THE COURT: All right. Juror No. 4 wanted

to talk with us. I need everybody before me.

All right. Let's deal with Juror No. 4.

Do you mind with the other ones present?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 4: No, no.

THE COURT: All right. You had asked to

address the Court?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 4: Yeah. Well,

yesterday when I came and I went, you know, how it has

the exceptions thing. None of them really pertained to

me. So I went up there anyway and they said, no, sit

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


97

down, they'll hear others later. I went to the bathroom

because it was a long line. Well, Ms. -- Judge Galvan,

had left. So I came back and sat down. I talked to

Pat. She said, don't worry about it. Let the process

go through, you're probably gonna go. Now, I got picked

on the panel. So as soon as I get picked on the panel,

I back up and I told them what my situation was. They

said, oh, don't worry about it, because as soon as you

go see the Judge. Well, I haven't had a chance to.

THE COURT: Well, now's your chance. Tell

us.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 4: Okay. Usually --

well, tomorrow I have an appointment with Dr. Charles

Breckenridge because I have a tear, a lateral tear and I

have a tear in my shoulder and a bursitis. So I'm

supposed to have surgery before the end of the year so

I'm afraid it's gonna, you know, conflict with me being

here.

THE COURT: Okay.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 4: Or not being

here.

THE COURT: All right.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 4: And here's the

deal. If -- let's say if you were to pick me, okay, and

I had to reschedule everything, it's gonna cost me some

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


98

money because insurances are changing. My deductible

right now has already been met. All I have to do is pay

my co-pay, $150 and I'm done. If I wait till after the

year, then I gotta start over and it's gonna cost me

over $3800 bucks.

THE COURT: All right. We'll need to

discuss that. Anybody have any questions?

MR. CHAVES: No questions.

MR. BLANCO: Are you in pain right now?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 4: Right now? Yeah.

I can't, well, I can't go this far. I can go this way,

but it's a -- for some reason, lateral or something, but

I can't reach over head or anything like that or, you

know.

THE COURT: I'm gonna ask you to go ahead

and go to lunch.


THE COURT: And my bailiff will let you

know at the beginning of the next session whether or not

you are excused or not.


THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WARREN: We've got four good lawyers

that also moonlight as surgeons so we can get that done.

THE COURT: All right. You're the one that

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


99

came up second too. What would you like to address?

THE REPORTER: What number are you, sir?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 80: Number 80.

Well, I'm just here cause at 12:00 at night

I start my vacation and I already got plans. Me and my

wife already have plans for --

THE COURT: What plans?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 80: Well, we're just

gonna go -- she likes to go shopping so.

THE COURT: In Corpus Christi?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 80: No, no. I go to

Houston, we're gonna go to Houston --

THE COURT: I got you.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 80: -- and Austin

and just --

THE COURT: All right. Any questions?


THE COURT: What I'll ask you to do is go

ahead and come back after the lunch hour and

Mr. Gallegos will have these numbers that we're talking

about, and he will let you know.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 80: Okay, ma'am.

Thank you for your help.

THE COURT: Very good.

Ma'am, would you like to come forward?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


100

This is Juror No. 60.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 60: 60. I wear

hearing aids and so I can understand you perfectly. But

you get kind of soft, and not speaking into the speaker.

I have a hard time understanding some words.

THE COURT: Okay. That is an admonition

for all of the lawyers that we need to speak up. And

raise your hand. I can't hear, okay? And so we're --

we will take that into consideration. Do you have any?


THE COURT: No questions? Go have lunch.


MR. CHAVES: Thank you.

THE COURT: Mr. Gallegos will have your

number.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 53: Mine's kind of

fun. I and my family are scheduled to take my mother on

her 80th birthday cruise next week. When I heard this

is two and a half weeks.

THE COURT: It's a shame you won't be able

to go with them.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 53: I know.

MR. CHAVES: So what cruise are we all

going on?

THE COURT: Yeah.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


101

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 53: A Bahama cruise.

MR. CHAVES: We'll try the case from the

back deck.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 53: I'm glad to hear

I might still be going.

THE COURT: You might still be going. Any

questions?


THE COURT: All right. We're gonna talk

about it and Mr. Gallegos will tell you as soon as you

come back from lunch.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 53: Thank you,

ma'am.

THE COURT: All right. Sir?

MR. EDWARDS: He's with me.

THE COURT: Oh, he's with you. Okay.

Let's talk about the four that came up here. Let me get

my notes.

All right. The first one was Juror No. 4,

he's the one with the rotator cuff.

MR. BLANCO: He's having surgery,

Your Honor.

MR. CHAVES: Well, he's not having surgery

in the next two weeks.

MR. BLANCO: Yeah, he is.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


102

MR. CHAVES: I thought he's gonna --

THE COURT: No, he's gonna have his surgery

before the end of the year because he's met his

deductible. If he doesn't, it'll cost him $3800 is what

I heard. Any objection to releasing him?

MR. CHAVES: I do object, Judge.

THE COURT: All right. Then he's not

released.

MR. WARREN: I'll join in that objection.

THE COURT: I'll let him know you're --

no --

MR. WARREN: Yeah, really.

THE BAILIFF: Sorry, Judge. Did you say

not released?

THE COURT: Not released. He'll have to

stay for the rest of the voir dire. And that's the way

you express it to them that the attorneys feel that

you'll have to stay for the rest of the voir dire.

Okay. Next is the, Juror No. 80. I can't

remember.

MR. CHAVES: I think he wanted to go

shopping.

THE COURT: I want to go shopping.

MR. CHAVES: Does the Court have to hear

anything? He's not gonna get reached anyway, but --

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


103

THE COURT: He's not gonna get reached and

I think it will be a challenge for cause on it.

MR. EDWARDS: There is.

THE COURT: Okay. So we'll let Mr. 80 go.

Is that -- agreement?

MR. WARREN: I'd say let's have him come

back.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. 80 has to stay

for the afternoon.

MR. WARREN: My suspicion is he won't be

reached or if there's a possibility he might be struck,

but I won't concede that he'll been struck.

THE COURT: No, I'm not conceding anything.

I listed what I heard.

MR. WARREN: Right.

THE COURT: The next one was the lady who

is having problems hearing. That was just an admonition

to all of you. You've got to speak into the mike

because she may --

MR. CHAVES: Raise your voice.

THE COURT: And I would say that you start

and say, raise your hand if you can't hear me any time.

MR. WARREN: Right.

THE COURT: All right. So she's coming

back. And Number 53 with the cruise?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


104

MR. WARREN: I suspect from the way he

presented it, that he's already prepaid his tickets.

THE COURT: Oh, yeah. They don't let you

get on until you're prepaid.

MR. WARREN: Right, yes.

THE COURT: Everybody in agreement?

MR. EDWARDS: Yes.

MR. BLANCO: Yes, Your Honor.

MR. CHAVES: Yes.

THE COURT: There's a potential challenge

for cause there.

MR. CHAVES: I think there was a potential,

yeah.

THE COURT: All right. And we allow 53 to

go?

MR. BLANCO: Yes.

THE COURT: By agreement, excused. All the

other three will be with us for the afternoon. Okay.

MR. WARREN: Thank you, Your Honor.

MR. CHAVES: We're back at 1:45, Judge?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. CHAVES: Thank you, Your Honor.

(Noon recess.)

(Outside presence of the jury panel.)

(The following bench conference was held.)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


105

THE COURT: Okay. We got two more juror

problems. No. 76 is Angel -- Angela Fernandez, she's

76. I think she -- no, she was not. Her -- she checked

her cell phone when she left over the lunch hour and her

mother was rushed to the hospital. Her mother is in

Bayview and so she said she didn't know if she was gonna

make it back.

MR. WARREN: Doesn't she have -- she has a

right to excuse herself anyway, age exempt?

THE COURT: I don't -- well, no that's an

exemption, but you have to claim it.

MR. WARREN: Right, if she claimed it so.

Okay.

THE COURT: The other one, No. 40,

approached, Art, my bailiff and says he has a bad upper

respiratory infection and Art says he sounds horrible.

So I'm just bringing those things to your attention. I

don't think -- my take on this is we're not gonna get to

Juror No. 78.

MR. WARREN: I think you're right,

Your Honor.

THE COURT: So is there an agreement to

excuse her for cause?

MR. CHAVES: I think --

THE COURT: Because she's not here because

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


106

her mother's in the hospital.

MR. CHAVES: -- I'll agree.

THE COURT: All right. Then 76 is excused.

No. 40, what do you want to do about him? He is sick.

He thinks he needs to go to the doctor.

MR. WARREN: Only if he stands over there.

MR. BLANCO: Only if he stands over there.

THE COURT: Look at it and see what you

want to do.

MR. EDWARDS: Say that again.

MR. BLANCO: Number 40, whether we're gonna

bring him up to talk. He has a bad respiratory

infection. This is not the fellow with the --

MR. WARREN: With the flu. No, we let him

go earlier.

MR. EDWARDS: So, I mean, we -- I don't

think we want a sick person on the jury.

MR. CHAVES: Well, nobody wants a sick

person on the jury.

MS. BELTRAN: Don't let them hear --

THE COURT: Do you want to bring him up so

you can hear him?

MR. EDWARDS: Sure. I'll step aside.

THE COURT: Would you ask Juror No. 40 to

step forward, please.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


107

(Juror 40 approaches.)

THE COURT: Mr. Gallegos advised that

you're not feeling well; is that right?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 40: That's correct,

ma'am.

THE COURT: Okay. And have you been sick

for a while?


THE COURT: When did you get sick?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 40: Well, my wife

has the respiratory infection and my grandchild is now

getting it, so.

THE COURT: Okay. All right.

MR. EDWARDS: No questions, Your Honor.

MR. WARREN: You didn't have to whisper.

THE COURT: It's -- it's up there. What do

you want to do?

MR. EDWARDS: I'm --

MR. CHAVES: I don't have any questions.

THE COURT: All right. Then if you'll step

back, we'll make a decision here shortly.

(Prospective Juror No. 40 exits courtroom.)

THE COURT: Agreed?

MR. CHAVES: (Nodding head up and down.)

MR. WARREN: Yes.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


108

THE COURT: Mr. Gallegos, would you advise

Mr. -- Juror No. 40, he may leave and go to the doctor.

He sounds bad.

(Brief recess.)

(Jury panel seated in courtroom.)

THE COURT: Mr. Gallegos has advised me

that all the jurors are present and on time. I like

that kind of jury.

All right. We're ready to proceed.

MR. EDWARDS: May it please the Court?

THE COURT: Yes. Thank you.

MR. EDWARDS: Earlier today, I don't think

I had my microphone on and I -- is this better? Good.

If anybody has -- during the remainder of

this time, if -- if anybody has any difficulty hearing,

please hold your hand up and we will certainly turn up

our volume, okay?

So, I started to go into a subject before

lunch and I'm gonna move ahead to another subject. And

I will tell you, you're probably gonna be glad to hear

that I'm running short of time. So what I'm gonna do is

try to speed my process up. I thought we had a very

productive morning. I'm gonna try to speed the process

up in the next bit of time that I have remaining --

remaining on my clock.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


109

So we started to talk about damages before

lunch. Now, one element of damage that often gets

talked about a lot are mental anguish -- damages for

mental anguish and damages for physical pain and

suffering. And I know, just from my experience and my

close friends, I have friends who just tell me, Billy, I

like -- you know, I like you as a guy, as a friend, but

you know, I just don't believe in those mental anguish

damages and I don't believe in those damages, the awards

for pain and suffering. And I know there's lots of good

reasons that some people have those kinds of feelings.

It can be that, you know, awards -- jury awards for

mental anguish damages are just too high. That mental

anguish damages don't award for money out-of-pocket,

like the medical expenses and wages. I know there's

good reasons for it, and if I had more time, I would

circle through row by row and find out who has some

feelings against mental anguish damages. But because

I'm starting to run short on time, what I'm gonna do is

just jump right ahead to the pressing question. We --

and I hope that you will allow me to do that. Remember

that we're here to talk honestly, to share our opinions

about things, and it was, I thought a very productive

morning this morning. And so let me just jump right to

the question. Which of you here, if the law allows and

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


110

the evidence supports an award of money damages for

mental anguish damages -- for mental anguish or pain and

suffering, which of you here would still be unable to

make that kind of an award of damages? So let me make

my notes here real quick. We've got No. 4,

Mr. Hinojosa. Thank you. Number 16, Mr. Miller, No.

37, Mr. Horowitz, No. 12, Ms. Arias, No. 48, there we

go, 48, and 78, 79, and 72. So Mr. Miller, let me ask

you, if -- if we were clear with one another on that

question and answer. Do I understand you to be telling

us today that regardless of what the evidence may show

about mental anguish or pain and suffering, you just

don't think you could award any damages, any money for

those types of damages?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 16: I think it's

subjective, don't you? You put up a -- a figure and you

want us to decide yes or no on that figure based on

their mental anguish. But I don't really know what kind

of mental anguish she's going through or is going to be

going through.

MR. EDWARDS: Sure.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 16: And that's

definitely sort of affecting things in my life,

certainly in my business. So I find it reprehensible,

the amount of money that goes into mental anguish and

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


111

pain and so on. Again, I feel it's subjective. And I

think it's quite lucrative to be on the other side

receiving it, but there's a great many of us on the

other side who have to pay that.


PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 16: And that affects

my business tremendously.

MR. EDWARDS: Absolutely.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 16: There's a huge

bias in there.

MR. EDWARDS: And thank you for your

answer, Mr. Miller.

And Mr. Horowitz, are we clear on the

question and answer theory? Regardless of what the

evidence may be, you just couldn't --


MR. EDWARDS: -- you couldn't find yourself

answering -- giving an award for mental anguish?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 37: I can't give

somebody ahead of time because they may feel bad about

something, can't sleep in the same room with somebody or

something.

MR. EDWARDS: All right. And so you just

couldn't award those types of damages?


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


112

MR. EDWARDS: You couldn't. No. So let me

circle back through. Ms. Arias, do you agree with

No. 37, Mr. Horowitz, that you just couldn't simply

award that kind of damage?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 12: I can see pain

and suffering is, but I don't see how putting money on

mental anguish would help. I mean, pain and suffering I

understand, because that's long-term, you've got to deal

with pain management, therapy, so on down the line. But

I don't see how, I mean, to me -- I'm going through

something myself, you know, injuries myself, pain and

suffering. There's no amount of money that you can put

on that.

MR. EDWARDS: Sure.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 12: It's just

something that you've got to deal with.

MR. EDWARDS: And I know that I've heard

other people say that that's another reason for not

awarding mental anguish damages. And what I hear you

saying is, if you're on this jury, you don't want to

have to award mental anguish damages?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 12: I can see pain

and suffering, yes, because that is something. Lost

wages, yes.

MR. EDWARDS: But not mental anguish?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


113

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 12: I don't see how

that would -- I -- I personally, I don't think I could.


Let's see. Mr. Hinojosa, you indicated

that you would not?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 4: Yeah, I agree

with No. 37, Mr. Horowitz. I would not.

MR. EDWARDS: All right. You wouldn't

award mental anguish damages?


MR. EDWARDS: All right. And No. 48,

Ms. Moulzolf, do you agree that you -- did I hear you

correctly that you will not award mental anguish

damages?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 48: I couldn't.

MR. EDWARDS: You couldn't?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 48: Huh-uh.

MR. EDWARDS: Is that right? I'm sorry,

the court reporter --

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 48: Yes, yes.

MR. EDWARDS: Okay. I'm sorry. I hate to

be particular, but the record needs to be real clean on

this. You're saying yes, I agree with you, I will not

award mental anguish damages?


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


114

MR. EDWARDS: All right. Thank you. Let's

see, Mr. Payne, No. 72. Did I understand correctly that

you won't award mental anguish damages?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 72: That is correct.

MR. EDWARDS: And No. 78, Mr. Stancher.


MR. EDWARDS: No mental anguish damages

from you; is that correct?


MR. EDWARDS: And No. 79, Ms. Shea. No,

you wouldn't award mental anguish damages regardless of

the evidence?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 79: I do have a

question. Would mental anguish be covered under medical

costs or therapy?

MR. EDWARDS: No, this is a completely

separate -- completely separate item from --

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 79: Any

psychological needs that they have would be covered

under medical.

MR. EDWARDS: All right. So you would --

you could award money for the medical, but not for pain

and suffering or mental anguish?


MR. EDWARDS: Great. Thank you.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


115

All right. So this case does involve a

wreck between a motorcycle and a truck. And I had a

nice long spiel to go through with you on motorcycles,

so I'm gonna short -- I'm gonna try to short circuit it.

How many of you know -- I mean, there were a lot of

people here that indicated that they had seen the TV

commercials. How many of you know that I like to ride

motorcycles? A lot of you.

(A show of hands.)

MR. EDWARDS: Just a show of hands is good.

So look, I'm gonna ask you about your

feelings against motorcycles and motorcycle riders and

things revolving around motorcycles. And if you need

to, you can simply tell me, you know, bless your heart,

but I don't like motorcycles and I don't think -- and I

don't like things about motorcycles. Okay? So here's

my question.

There are people who just -- when it comes

to motorcycles, for some, it's a matter of principle.

You know, if you get on a motorcycle, you can expect to

be hurt they say. And my -- my aunt, my mother's sister

is this way. If she were here she would push me aside

and say, "If you climb on a motorcycle and you get hurt,

you've got no business bringing a lawsuit of this kind."

She's told me that. I know her. How many of you agree

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


116

with my aunt that if you climb on a motorcycle and you

get hurt, you've just got no business bringing a lawsuit

like this? Which of you agree?


MR. EDWARDS: Everybody good with that?

Anybody have feelings against motorcycles

and things related to motorcycles? Any feelings

against?



Oh, I see -- No. 51 and 75. So let me start with

No. 51, Mr. Davila.


MR. EDWARDS: Can you share a little bit

about that, feelings against motorcycles?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 51: Just in the

course of driving the streets, older drivers, be that

male or female, you know, even with helmets on, and I've

seen them actually avoiding an accident because they

were -- would have been causing the accident. It seems

like they're just reliving their youth. That's the only

thing I've got against motorcycle drivers.

MR. EDWARDS: I'm sorry, what was the last

part?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 51: That's the only

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


117

thing I've got against motorcycle drivers.

MR. EDWARDS: Is that sometimes they -- let

me ask it this way: Whatever experience you've had that

you're describing, if the jury -- if the Judge puts you

into the jury box, is that experience gonna influence

your decision in this case when there are two people

here who got hurt on a motorcycle?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 51: Not knowing if

they were on the receiving end or if they were on the

giving end, I'd say -- I'd be fair.

MR. EDWARDS: Okay.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 51: But knowing that

I was also involved in a motorcycle car accident and the

motorcyclist left his lane and plowed into my new car

after three weeks old and messed up my car. And I, you

know, kind had, my usual thing that motorcycle drivers

you know, reliving their youth.

MR. EDWARDS: Sure. And here's the thing.

The law allows that motorcycle drivers have the same

legal rights as any other driver on the highway or the

roadway. Do you have any qualms about treating somebody

on the motorcycle equally?


MR. EDWARDS: All right. Mr. Davila, thank

you for that.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


118

I thought I saw another card back here.

Number 75, Mr. Mendoza, what -- tell me a little bit

about your feelings against motorcycles.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 75: Again, being in

the fire department, and just driving, you know, besides

other cars, that it's just too easy for them to go

through traffic when traffic is just at a stop or

whatever and then end up getting hurt or something and

then it's the other person's fault.

MR. EDWARDS: Yeah.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 75: You know.

MR. EDWARDS: Yeah, you bring up a point.

If I may interrupt real quick. You bring up a point

that's important. Do we have any sport bike riders

here? Anybody that rides a sport bike? What's your

number? Number 66 and No. 19.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 19: My boyfriend has

one and I ride with him.

MR. EDWARDS: You ride with him?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 19: We wear helmets

and yeah.

MR. EDWARDS: All that good stuff. All

right. So Mr. Mendoza, it sounds like based on your

experience, you just got some feelings about

motorcycles. You know, here's the bottom line question

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


119

that only you can -- you can honestly look into your

heart and you know, if you need to bless anybody else's

heart in here, if you're afraid you're gonna hurt your

feelings, you can. If you're put in the jury box are

these prior experiences with motorcycles gonna impact

your decision in this case?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 75: It depends on

their experience. A lot people are out there and, you

know, oh, I'm a safe motorcycle driver and whatever, and

you see them, you know. The big motorcycles that don't

handle like the sports bikes do, they're trying do the

same thing, it's just like what's the record? What's --

what's their -- how are their habits, you know -- you

know. You know, small equipment to protect, you know.

I mean, I've been through decapitations, you know, pick

up people like that. It's just like, wow. I mean, for

a little while I -- I even wanted a motorcycle and then

I've seen so much stuff like, I said, there's no way.

No way I'd ever get on one of those, not on a public

road.

MR. EDWARDS: All right. So I still need

to continue to ask. If you're put in the jury box, it's

sounding like, if you're put in the jury box, these

experiences of yours and these opinions that you're

expressing are gonna go into that jury box with you and

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


120

influence your decision.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 75: Definitely.

Definitely.

MR. EDWARDS: Definitely. Okay. Was there

anybody else who held up their card that they had some

feelings against motorcycles or things about

motorcycles? Number 27.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 27: I'd just like to

be fair and say that my husband was killed in a

motorcycle accident --

MR. EDWARDS: I'm sorry to hear that.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 27: But that doesn't

change my ways. I still, if people want to go

motorcycle riding, I go.

MR. EDWARDS: Okay. Well, I'm sorry to

hear that.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 27: I don't have

anything against motorcycles.

MR. EDWARDS: Now, there is no allegation

of responsibility against Theresa Gamez. She was a

passenger on the motorcycle and nobody is saying that

she is at fault or responsible for this wreck in any

way. And I need to make sure that in light of that,

that when the jury goes back to deliberate this case,

that everybody is okay with awarding Theresa Gamez's

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


121

full damages based on the evidence without saying, you

know, she climbed on that motorcycle, she's got some

responsibility here. Is that question -- am I getting

across to you here? You know, it just -- with no

allegations against her and there's not gonna be any

contest out here in the courtroom in front of the jury

about whether she was or wasn't at fault. It's simply a

matter of this case that she's not at fault and not

responsible for the wreck. And is everybody good going

back to the jury room to deliberate, if you're on the

jury, with the understanding that Theresa Gamez is to be

treated as somebody without fault and without

responsibility, and it shouldn't influence the decision

on damages?



Number 54.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 54: I would separate

the term "fault" with responsibility. She has no fault

in the accident. As far as what I've heard from her,

she got hit -- well, I shouldn't say that. I don't

know. But fault is one thing, but responsibility, you

got a responsibility when you choose to get on these.

Some people don't take responsibility when you're on

there. But yeah, there's a separation of fault and

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


122

responsibility.

MR. EDWARDS: All right. Now, if you're on

the jury, do you think that you would consider whether

or not Ms. Gamez has responsibility for the fact that

she got onto the motorcycle?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 54: A small

fraction. Like I said, not at fault of the accident

because she's not in control of the bike. She was a

passenger. There's responsibility for her to say -- as

far as deciding to get on in the first place.

MR. EDWARDS: All right. And you would --

you would carry that into the jury deliberations with

you?


MR. EDWARDS: All right. And Mr. Hinojosa

I saw you shaking your head.


MR. EDWARDS: Do you agree?


PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 75: I also agree.

MR. EDWARDS: Number 75, you also agree?


MR. EDWARDS: Yes. Oh, and No. 16,

Mr. Miller.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 16: Absolutely.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


123

MR. EDWARDS: Same thing?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 16: You have the

same responsibility if you climb into a vehicle with

four wheels and the person behind the wheel is drinking.

You should be just as responsible for allowing that to

happen as you did. I'm not suggesting that's what

happened here. But everybody knows you're on two

wheels. Those of us who have ridden bikes have had

bikes down and you know you're not nearly as safe on two

as you are on four.


Yes, No. 34.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 34: Yes, sir. I

think I would have to agree with this gentleman, with

Mr. Miller also.

MR. EDWARDS: All right. And you're

agreeing that you would hold Theresa Gamez responsible

for getting onto the motorcycle and that would go back

and be part of your jury deliberations?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 34: I would have to

listen to all of it, but I agree that it was some kind

of responsibility on her part too, to get on it. I

would be partial.

MR. EDWARDS: All right. Thank you. My

next question is, and I know that -- I know we've got

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


124

one. My question is, who here has any kind of a

connection to the trucking industry? You know, you have

a close family member that drives trucks, you have

somebody that owns or operates a trucking company, that

kind of thing. And it looks like we're gonna get a

number of hands. So let me just go row by row. I'm

gonna go row by row.

First row, anybody on the first row?


MR. EDWARDS: Anybody on the second row?

All right. 13, yes, ma'am.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 13: My ex-

brother-in-law owns a trucking company.


PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 13: In Houston.

MR. EDWARDS: Anything about that affect

your decision in this case?


MR. EDWARDS: Number 15.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 15: I've been a

truck driver for 27 years.

MR. EDWARDS: You know, I don't mean this

to be a mean question. I hope it's just a simple

question. The fact that you're a truck driver for 27

years and Theresa Gamez is in here making a claim

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


125

against a trucking company and the truck driver, do you

think you're gonna start off with, you know, favoring

the truck driver?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 15: No, sir.

MR. EDWARDS: All right. Let's see,

anybody over here on the second row? No connection with

a -- all right.

Third row. Number 30.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 30: My ex-husband

was a truck driver and I have friends that have owned a

trucking company in California, but it won't affect my

decision.


Fourth row, Mr. Horowitz, what's your

connection?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 37: Been in the

trucking and crane business for 40 years, sir.

MR. EDWARDS: Good. Anybody else on that

row? The next row, I think that's, what is that, the

40's? And Mr. Dodson, No. 47, that -- I was thinking of

you from this morning.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 47: Yeah, just from

the business that my family's in, we have -- we're all

mostly agricultural that we haul.

MR. EDWARDS: Yes.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


126

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 47: That I've been

doing all my life.

MR. EDWARDS: Okay. Thank you.

THE COURT: Mr. Dodson's number, please?

MR. EDWARDS: 47.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. EDWARDS: And Mr. Dodson, does that

affect your opinion in this -- your decision in this

case?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 47: It wouldn't -- I

don't think it would right or wrong. I mean, as far as

you know, somebody being at fault or not at fault. But

I do think that it would -- it would weigh on it, I

mean, it would -- it would cause some consideration.


PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 47: To sway one way

or another, I believe.

MR. EDWARDS: Thank you, Mr. Dodson.

Anybody else in the 40's?


MR. EDWARDS: Anybody in the 50's? Number

53.


brother-in-law who's a truck driver, but it wouldn't

affect me at all.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


127

MR. EDWARDS: All right. And that was 43?

MR. CHAVES: 53.

MR. EDWARDS: 53. 53, thank you. And No.

55.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 55: I have some

friends and two or three cousins that are truck drivers,

but it wouldn't affect me.

MR. EDWARDS: All right. Thank you,

Mr. Moreno. Anybody in the 60's? 67? Yes, ma'am.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 67: I have some --

my father.

MR. EDWARDS: Your father is a --

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 67: A truck driver.

As well as my husband.

MR. EDWARDS: And is that gonna impact you

in this case?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 67. I don't know.

It could possibly.

MR. EDWARDS: All right. You can't -- it

sounds like you can't assure us right now that it won't.


MR. EDWARDS: And were you 67; is that

correct?


MR. EDWARDS: Thank you. And anybody else

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


128

in the 60's? Anybody else in the 70's? Number 75.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 75: My uncle is a

truck driver.


So let me just ask this one last question

and I'm gonna do it the same way we just did that and

I'm gonna ask about any experience that you have with

riding motorcycles, being a passenger on a motorcycle,

that kind of thing.

So if we can start with the first row.

Anybody have any experience owning a motorcycle, driving

a motorcycle, operating a motorcycle, being a passenger,

and whenever I call your number, if you'll just briefly

tell us what it is. Number 9.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 9: I used to ride

one till I was younger.

MR. EDWARDS: All right. You rode one

while you were younger.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 9: I owned one, yes.

MR. EDWARDS: Okay. How long ago was the

last time you rode?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 9: I joined the

Marine Corps when I was 22.

MR. EDWARDS: Long time ago.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


129

MR. EDWARDS: All right. Number 10.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 10: I owned a bike

for about two years.

MR. EDWARDS: And no more?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 10: No, I don't own

one.

MR. EDWARDS: What kind of bike?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 10: It was a Yamaha

V Star Cruiser.

MR. EDWARDS: Good. All right. Second

row. Number 14.


passenger.

MR. EDWARDS: You've been a passenger on

motorcycles?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 14: Never had a

problem.

MR. EDWARDS: Frequently or just now and

then?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 14: Back in the

past, in my 20's probably.

MR. EDWARDS: While you were in your 20's?


MR. EDWARDS: All right. Thank you, ma'am.

Mr. Miller, you've had some experience on motorcycles?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


130

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 16: I laid a bike

down in Colorado in 1974. The last time I ever got on a

bike.

MR. EDWARDS: All right. 1974. Thank you,

sir. Number 19 -- No. 18.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 18: Well, I grew up

in a family where we always had motorcycles. My dad is

a big Harley driver. So I've been around motorcycles my

whole life.

MR. EDWARDS: Okay. Thank you, ma'am.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 19: I do have my

motorcycle license and that's where we would -- well, my

fiance, who lives with me, has a sports bike. I used to

own a small 250 Verago. I don't ride anymore, I'd

rather be a passenger, but I still kept my license just

in case. I have two of them.

MR. EDWARDS: Good.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 19: Ride the bike

home or something, but yeah.

MR. EDWARDS: Thank you. And that was No.

19?


MR. EDWARDS: How about in the 20's? I'm

sorry.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 30: 30.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


131

MR. EDWARDS: In the 30's. Yes, ma'am, No.

30.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 30: For the last 12

years, we've had a Harley.

MR. EDWARDS: Last 12 years you and your --

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 30: My fiance in

California.

MR. EDWARDS: Yes.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 30: We have a

Harley.

MR. EDWARDS: Okay.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 30: And we ride all

the time.

MR. EDWARDS: Good. Thank you.

Anybody else in the 30s? No. -- No. 27.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 27: I'm a passenger

of a motorcycle.

MR. EDWARDS: Number 27, passenger on a

motorcycle.

Number 39.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 39: My husband's

been riding motorcycles for 50 years and I'm usually

just a passenger.

MR. EDWARDS: You have been on his bike as

a passenger?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


132


MR. EDWARDS: Okay. Mr. Horowitz, I think

we already --

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 37: Yeah, I owned

one actually back in about '76. Sold it a couple of

years ago.

MR. EDWARDS: All right. So let me come

across this side on that aisle. I think we may have

20's and 30's. Anybody here? 20's and 30's?


MR. EDWARDS: How about on the 40's -- in

the 40's on that row? 41.


passenger very seldom on my husband's motorcycle.

MR. EDWARDS: All right. Thank you. And

who else here? 42.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 42: Took one for a

test drive down the street.

MR. EDWARDS: You did a test drive?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 42: Yeah, I did a

test drive.

MR. EDWARDS: And you didn't buy it?


MR. EDWARDS: Okay. Number 45.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 45: Just a

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


133

passenger.

MR. EDWARDS: A passenger. Thank you.

Number 46.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 46: Passenger.

MR. EDWARDS: A passenger. Thank you,

ma'am.

Anybody in the 50's? Oh, No. 47.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 47: I was raised on

them as a kid and I've been riding a cruiser for

probably 20 years.

MR. EDWARDS: Good. Thank you. In the

50's? 51.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 51: One time

passenger for 15 minutes.

MR. EDWARDS: Okay. That was it? That was

it.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 51: That was it.

MR. EDWARDS: Number 52.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 52: A street bike,

40 years ago, trail bike 30 years ago.

MR. EDWARDS: Great. Thank you. 53.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 53: It was about 15

years, when I was younger, and then moved to a car.

MR. EDWARDS: Good. Number 54.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 54: I currently

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


134

ride.


PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 54: I currently

ride.

MR. EDWARDS: Currently ride. Good.


MR. EDWARDS: Good.

Anybody else in the 50's?


MR. EDWARDS: 60's? Number 62.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 62: I have a trike.

MR. EDWARDS: Just a trike. 65?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 65: Just a

passenger.

MR. EDWARDS: Been a passenger. 66, you

indicated you have a sport bike currently?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 66: Yes, sir. I was

a daily driver for about three years. Now it's just a

hobby.

MR. EDWARDS: Good. Any experience on

cruisers?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 66: Cruiser, very

minimal.

MR. EDWARDS: All right. Thank you, sir.

Anybody else in the 60's.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


135


MR. EDWARDS: Anybody on the last row in

the 70's? 75.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 75: I had a motor

bike as a teen and rode a little bit in my 20's and then

passed it on in my 20's and I didn't ride.

MR. EDWARDS: Very good. Number 77.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 77: Passenger as a

teenager.

MR. EDWARDS: Passenger as a teenager.

Thank you. Number 78.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 78: Twenty years on

a Harley.

MR. EDWARDS: Twenty years on a Harley.

79.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 79: Been a rider or

passenger. And my sons currently ride Harleys and my

husband sold his last year.

MR. EDWARDS: All right. So passenger and

operator and family members who do so.

All right. My clock says I'm out of time,

folks. Thank you very much. It has been a pleasure.

MR. BLANCO: The bad news is I now have 30

minutes, so bear with me. I will go fast. Part of this

is because while you were all listening to him, we were

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


136

listening to you and I -- I -- I kind of feel that I

know you a little bit, especially those who have spoken

quite a bit. So I'd like to talk to you, the ones that

haven't spoken, that way we -- the four of us, we have a

job to do.

And the first thing I want to say is, I'm

thankful that there's somebody else from California

here, because I -- I think you heard my name is

Alejandro Blanco and I came all the way from California

to help Mike Garcia. His name is Miguel Garcia, Sr.,

but he likes to be called Mike, so I'll call him Mike

during the trial.

When Mr. Smith called me and he said, I

need your help, I need your help with Mike Garcia. And

I said, tell me a little about what happened. And he

starts, "well, he's riding his bike, a motorcycle," I

immediately clicked off and I said, oh, no, not a

motorcycle rider. I'm sorry, I know that you like

Harleys.

MR. CHAVES: They can't hear you.

UNIDENTIFIED PROSPECTIVE JUROR: We can't

hear you.

MR. BLANCO: How about now?

UNIDENTIFIED PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yeah.

MR. BLANCO: Great. Sorry about that.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


137

And I share the same problem that you were

talking to us, ma'am. I have bilateral, you know,

enhancement, as I call them.

Because in my mind, you know, it's

motorcycle riders are just a pain, that's how I am. So

the ones that haven't spoken yet, I know Mr. Miller,

you've told us a little bit, and I know Mr. Horowitz you

told us also quite a bit. The ones that haven't spoken

to us yet, anybody feel like me, that motorcycle riders

are just a pain on the roadways? Number 32. Number 6.

Anybody else?


MR. WARREN: I'm sorry, what numbers were

those?

MR. BLANCO: I read 32 and No. 6.

MR. CHAVES: Number 6.

MR. WARREN: Thank you.

MR. BLANCO: I also have the list.

Mr. Amador.


MR. BLANCO: Tell me about -- I mean, I can

go on and on, but I only have 30 minutes. So I'd like

you to -- I need your help to shrink it down to see

whether we can get this done.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 32: In this area,

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


138

most of the majority of motorcycle riders are dangerous.

They don't obey traffic laws. It seems like they make

up their own laws. And there are some who do obey the

traffic laws. But my experience here in Corpus Christi,

the majority are unsafe drivers.

MR. BLANCO: Okay. Well, I haven't been

driving a long -- long enough to verify what you're

saying to me. You know we're looking for folks that

have strong opinions. I mean, I like 12 leaders in my

group, on my jury, because I want to make sure that we

do the right decision. And here's my question to you.

I mean, I -- after I heard the facts and I know the

facts would be working -- you know, I asked for quite a

while, I decided to take Mike's case and I decided to

present it to y'all. I'm getting that part, y'all. I

have decided to present it to you, for you to make the

right decision. And you know, Mr. Amador, if you're on

my jury, I will show you the good, the bad, and the

ugly. Because we, as a community, need to make the

right decision. Here's my question. The fact that you

have now lived and experienced, you know, these riders

that perhaps are not like Mr. Garcia, that they do

whatever they want to do, has that tainted, has that

filtered your mind in such a way that you will have to

say, Mr. Blanco, you can give me all the evidence you

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


139

want, I just -- I won't find for you because, you know,

those riders are nuts.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 32: For me I made

that statement, I wouldn't judge somebody like that. I

will say, generally whatever, a motorcycle rider knows

if anybody gets on the jury has responsibility to hear

the full facts.

MR. BLANCO: All right. And you're the

only one that can tell us, you know. Yes or no, right?


MR. BLANCO: Okay. Good.

Sada, Mr. Sada.


MR. BLANCO: Tell us about you.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 6: I agree with --

MR. BLANCO: With Mr. Amador?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 6: Yes, sir. I

agree with him. I have nothing against them, but some

of them do take advantage of how small the vehicle is.

Especially when it comes to other vehicles that are

modified, you get a lot of attention.

MR. BLANCO: All right. Well, let's say

you're back in the jury room and you say, well, you

know, Mr. Blanco delivered, you know, his word. He gave

us the evidence, you know. He showed us he's on the

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


140

right. He showed us that his clients should win, but

you know, those motorcycles riders, they're just nuts.

I can't do it. You're not that way?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 6: No, I have

nothing against them.

MR. BLANCO: Okay. Good. Now, Mr. Amador

and Mr. Sada, I would like you to be on my jury. Would

you like to be on my jury?


MR. BLANCO: Sir, would you like to be on

my jury?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 32: It's a long

trial, you know.

MR. BLANCO: All right. All right.

I'd like to talk about two words briefly

because I think that'll set us up really quick for a

number of questions that I have, because I have to ask

the hard questions. This is not -- this is not one of

those three miles an hour kind of deals. This is a very

serious case. So I'd like to talk about two words, and

actually, there was Juror No. 2, one time, in a trial

that told me about these words after the trial. So I've

used them since. I've asked for permission to use Juror

No. 2, but he was kind of sitting right there where he

was and he says, you know, Mr. Blanco, there is a

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


141

responsibility. And responsibility is when -- when we

do something that is wrong, but we immediately act to

fix it. And when we can't fix it, we do some things, we

do things to make up for it. But the important part, he

says, is that it comes from within. Nobody has to tell

us something. And that's a good thing. But over here,

he says, there's accountability. It's when somebody,

they do something wrong to one of us. But instead of

acting, they refuse to act. They say, what are you

gonna do, sue me? So here's my question. And I'd like

to pick two or three of you and then get in. Mr. Pesek

or Pesek?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 24: Pesek.

MR. BLANCO: Pesek. Sir, is it all right

with you that we, as citizens in the community, have to

use the tools of the law to hold somebody accountable

when they refuse to be responsible? Is it all right

with you, sir?


MR. BLANCO: But why do we need another

lawsuit?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 24: If it's -- it's

not that we need another lawsuit, it's just defending

the laws, holding people responsible for the law.

MR. BLANCO: Right.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


142

Mr. Palacios, how about you, sir? Is it

all right with you that I have to use the tools of the

law to hold somebody accountable when they refuse to be

responsible?


MR. BLANCO: And again, is it all right,

you know, can you see of an alternative that using the

law to holding people accountable?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 22: No, I think, you

know, people should be accountable even if they're

companies or whatever, individuals, or if they're

responsible for something then they ought to be held

accountable. It's fair.

MR. BLANCO: Right. Is there anybody here

that feels that it's not all right to use the tools of

the law to hold somebody accountable when they refuse to

be responsible? Anybody here?


MR. BLANCO: Good. The evidence in this

case is gonna involve a lot of technical stuff. Again,

I won't talk specifically about the evidence, but I can

tell you that there will be engineers. There will be

truck experts. There will be medical doctors. Because

what we're dealing with is brain injury and damage.

We're dealing with orthopedic damages, local doctors,

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


143

you know, people here that are going to be presenting

all of the evidence. Not just opinions, but treatment.

I don't know if you've noticed, but Mr. Garcia, he's

lost a leg and as part of his damages also lost a

finger. It is likely that the evidence is going to show

that there is two parts to this crash. You know, the

expression, it takes two to tango, right? And so the --

part of our decision is going to be determine how much

responsibility goes on to Kenneth Jennings and Dillon

Transport for this crash, and how much responsibility

goes to Mr. Garcia for this crash. One of the reasons

I'm here is because jointly, Mr. Jennings and Dillon

Transport are saying that Mr. Garcia is 100 percent, all

of it is on him. That's part of the decision. And I

said, you know what, no. So here's my question.

Anybody here have training, experience, in dealing with

the science of traffic collision reconstruction, you

know, physics, that type of thing? Yes.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 66: No formal

training on like traffic collisions or anything like

that. But a greater opinion of physics.

MR. BLANCO: Let me make sure that the

record is clear.

THE COURT: Number, please.

MR. BLANCO: Mr. Feamster, No. 66.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


144


MR. BLANCO: So for example, if I say, feet

per second, you will understand that?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 66: That's velocity.

MR. BLANCO: If I say that if you're going

10 miles an hour, you're actually moving one and a half

foot per second, in one second you will have come -- I'm

sorry, 15, in one second you will have covered 15 feet,

that is normal to you, right?


MR. BLANCO: All right. Anybody else will

understand what we're saying, if you know? Yes, No. 62.

Mr. Winters, what's your experience in that?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 62: Just through

college courses in physics, you know, simple terms like

that, we understand.

MR. BLANCO: Okay. There will be quite a

bit of information regarding reverse engineering to

determine an area of impact and so forth. So here --

and I'm sorry, Mr. Gerloff, 73, you also raised yours?

What's your experience, Mr. Gerloff?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 73: I was --

MR. BLANCO: I'm sorry, what?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 73: -- I was trained

on -- you know, in that type of physics --

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


145

THE REPORTER: I can't hear what he's

saying.

MR. BLANCO: I cannot -- I cannot hear you.

I'm sorry. I'm gonna crank up my hearing aid.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 73: I do some

physics. I can understand what you're saying about it.

MR. BLANCO: All right. If I say -- if I

say, coefficient of friction and all of those phrases,

do you understand that or is that?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 73: No, I don't.

MR. BLANCO: Okay. All right. Well here's

my question to those of you -- yes, Mr. -- 65, Flores.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 65: Yeah, through

college, I'm familiar with that physics.

MR. BLANCO: Okay. Well, I won't promise

you a CSI type of trial. I'm sorry. We don't have

those facilities and most of it is -- most of it is --

but I will promise you reputable, you know, respectable

expert testimony. Here's my question. Can you, those

that have raised their hands in this specialized

knowledge, can you put those knowledge, that knowledge

on hold and listen to the testimony of the witnesses on

the stand using your common sense, not your specialized

knowledge, and decide, based upon the testimony, and

what the Judge's instructions gives you, instead of your

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


146

own personal knowledge? Can you do that, Mr. Feamster?


MR. BLANCO: I'm not -- I'm not asking you

to just leave your common sense completely aside.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 66: Yes, I can be

impartial.

MR. BLANCO: But you know what happens is

somebody's gonna stay, hey, you know a lot about

motorcycles, what do you think? Where we have expert

testimony that is contrary. In that sense, you can make

your own decisions based upon your common sense and your

particular knowledge. What you can't do is become an

expert in the jury room. Does that make sense to you?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 66: So if somebody

doesn't understand what a particular witness was

stating, I'm not able to break it down into like

layman's terms?

MR. BLANCO: Correct.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 66: I'd be able to

do that.

MR. BLANCO: You can say, well, the way I

understood it is A, B, and C, but that's about it. And

I'm sure that his honor is gonna have very strong

cautionary language to you. Same thing with medical

treatment. Anybody here works at Christus Spohn?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


147

Right. I mean, there's going to be, guess where these

fellows were flied into a couple of years ago. Okay.

There's going to be medical knowledge that you have.

Same questions. So, let me make sure -- I'm beginning

to get anxious because I have 15 minutes left and I

haven't gotten very far. So let me make sure I do a

good job. To those of you with knowledge of physics,

will you give me assurances that you will not teach or

educate our jurors, you will use that as part of your

common sense knowledge? Yes? Yes. Yes. Yes. Okay.

Great.

Please raise your hands if you have medical

knowledge. No. 32, 65, No. 75, 66, 19, 10, 21. Again,

I will not spend time, but can we agree that if you're

selected on this jury you will not utilize that

information to educate other jurors about what the

medical terminology is, or what it means? And can we do

this?

(A show of hands.)

MR. BLANCO: Yes? Yes. Okay. Mr. -- yes,

Mr. Amador.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 32: Part of my

profession is to teach medical. I don't know if -- if

I'm selected to the jury and one of my jurors want an

explanation, what does this mean, I feel compelled by my

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


148

profession to explain it to them. It's part of my job,

and I feel if someone doesn't understand what certain

terminology means, I can answer it. I feel like that

it's part of my duty to do so.

THE COURT: In deliberations, you-all may

discuss among yourselves everything that you heard or

saw in the courtroom. So if that definition of a

medical term has been brought out of a witness on the

witness stand, you may deliberate and discuss that in

the jury room. The problem is, is when you have

specialized knowledge, you've not been called as an

expert, you haven't been subject to direct examination

and cross-examination to test the veracity of what

you're saying or the validity of what opinions you're

giving, all right? So it is a fine line in that jury

room. You may discuss anything that you heard and saw

in that courtroom from the witness stand and give weight

and value to it. That's part of the deliberation

process. But you can't, in your own right say, well,

you know, I had a case and this is what we did here

because that's not evidence that was brought in the

courtroom subject to cross-examination. You may not

add, based upon your education or experience, in

addition to what was brought out in the courtroom. All

right?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


149

I will give you three more minutes.

MR. BLANCO: We have a fair judge.

MR. CHAVES: Tick-tock, tick-tock.

MR. BLANCO: And an unfair Defendant.

And I appreciate that very much. See, my

next question, my next job -- I will tell you, it is my

job to bring out all the information. If we're talking

about axonal shearing and diffuse of some injury, We're

talking about brain injury and how the ions go into the

cells, that's my job. I mean, I gotta do my job and

make sure that we present to you all of the evidence,

and part of the problem that we have, Mr. Amador, is

choosing what not to bring because there's so much of

it. Okay. That's our job. But that's my job. The

question is, the job, as the Court indicated, if it

hasn't been defined, it's been chosen not to be

presented to you, would you resist the urge to use

personal knowledge in order to educate the jury?

Because it's not something that is in the universe of

the facts for you to decide.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 32: That's a hard

question to answer because I've never been put in that

position, so I don't know. At this time, I couldn't

answer that.

MR. BLANCO: Given that you have a vocation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


150

to teach, if that's what you do, do you think that that

is a moral imperative, something that you will have to

do, even if told not to, because that is part of your --

what you do?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 32: If the Judge has

instructed, I would follow her instructions.

MR. BLANCO: All right. That's what we

need to know. If the Judge says, no, part of it is you

can have a bleeding lip, but you're gonna have to bite

your tongue. Is that all right? Is that cool with you?


and down.)

MR. BLANCO: All right.

All right. So I'd like to talk about two

more things, five minutes each. The first one is, even

when we decide what is the fair distribution of, you

know, responsibility for the occurrence of the crash,

you know, in our lingo is, who's at fault? The law says

we cannot diminish, we cannot take out the -- or reduce

the amounts of the damages. Part of it is -- part of my

job is to represent Mr. Garcia for these damages that he

has. All right. So some folks said, you know, I'm

sorry, if I find that there is a contribution or

comparative negligence, whether it's 75/25 or 60/40, I

am going to do that reduction myself. Okay. I think

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


151

you'll hear a very strong directive from the Court that

at the end, that is going to be done, but we need to

have 100 percent, no deduction of the damages. Does

that make sense to you so far? Because I have a couple

of questions. Does anybody have any questions?


MR. BLANCO: Okay. So let's say as a

hypothetical that the damage, the actual number is $100.

Okay? And that you find that Mr. Garcia was 25 percent

at fault in this particular case. All right. With me

so far? Can you say, yes?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 18: Number 18. I'm

confused. You're talking about Mr. Garcia and you're

talking about Ms. Gomez (sic) and it's like, are these

two in one?

MR. CHAVES: There's two.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 18: Can you say

that?

MR. WARREN: There are two plaintiffs

against the defendants.

THE COURT: All right. Let me take it.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 18: Okay. That's

the first, I gathered that.

THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Edwards represents

Ms. Gamez.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


152


THE COURT: Mr. Blanco represents

Mr. Garcia.


THE COURT: Just like on the defense side,

Mr. Warren, over there, represents Dillon Transport, and

Mr. Chaves represents Mr. Jennings. So that each of the

parties involved have their own attorneys.


THE COURT: And they will be presenting for

their particular clients and will be cross-examining

witnesses on behalf of their clients as well.

MR. BLANCO: Does that explain that?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 18: Yes, Absolutely.

THE COURT: One more minute.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 18: Sorry.

MR. BLANCO: I'll take 45 seconds,

Your Honor, no.

So, Mr. Garcia was riding the motorcycle.

Ms. Gamez was a passenger. Okay? And the reason I have

a percentage is because -- well, part of it isn't the

injury, but part of it also is he's being accused of

being 100 percent at fault.

UNIDENTIFIED PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Can you

speak up, please.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


153

MR. BLANCO: Yes. Sorry. Part of wearing

hearing aids is that you have to raise them so that I

can hear you, and then I feel like I'm screaming, and

I'm being rude to you, so I apologize.

So anyways, yes, Mr. Garcia is the

motorcycle rider. Okay.

So I believe at the end, we're going to

find that this happened as a contribution, okay? That's

how I believe what the evidence will establish. I may

be wrong. Here's the question. Because he also has

damages -- and let's say that the damages are $100 and

let's say that 12 of you decide that he is 25 percent at

fault. The requirement of the law is, you establish the

$100, that has to be your verdict. No reduction for the

comparative fault. Does that make sense so far?


MR. BLANCO: Okay. Who here has a problem

with that? Who says, no, I'll have to do the

reductions. Okay.

THE REPORTER: Can you call out the numbers

for the record, please?

MR. CHAVES: Number 4.

MR. BLANCO: I will read them. So,

Mr. Hinojosa, No. 4, you would have to do the reductions

on your own?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


154


MR. BLANCO: Before you render your

verdict, right?


MR. BLANCO: Okay. 51, Mr. Davila.


MR. BLANCO: You would also have to do the

reduction before you render your verdict?


MR. BLANCO: Okay. Number 34, Mr. Lucio.


MR. BLANCO: You would also have to do the

reduction before you render your verdict?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 34: I think I would.

MR. BLANCO: Well, "I think" is kind of a

tentative.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 34: Well, yes, sir.

I would.

MR. BLANCO: You would. Okay. All right.

Anybody else?


question and she may have to give you more time.

I don't believe any of us have heard, is

there a trial that was prior to this that designated the

guilt of one party over the other?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


155

MR. BLANCO: No, sir. You're going to do

it.


THE COURT: Maybe I can cut to the chase on

this. There will be an instruction from this Court that

when you answer what we call, the liability issues, you

will answer those separately, okay? And after you have

done that, you are going to answer the damage questions,

that is, how much lost wages in the past, how much lost

wages in the future, and there will be a very clear

instruction from me that you are not to reduce the

damages in any way from any comparative percentages that

you have previously awarded in prior questions, okay?

Jury doesn't do that. They determine the liability

and/or the comparison of the liability or the

percentages of fault. Another way of putting it. Then

they're asked to do the dollar figures with regards to

damages, and they're instructed not to reduce the

damages by percentages of fault.


THE COURT: One more minute.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 16: My answer would

be, I can't.

MR. BLANCO: I'm sorry, your answer would

be?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


156

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 16: I would reduce

it, so I couldn't.

MR. BLANCO: You would?


MR. BLANCO: Okay. All right. I want you

to all think -- imagine a hypothetical person and the

reason I'm gonna do this is, you know, we've been

talking about this case for almost two and half hours in

generalities, which is really difficult. When I first,

you know, started doing this, 30 years ago, I'd always

get into the facts and would be thundered from the judge

because to me, it's like, without facts, how do you talk

about it?

But this is a civil case, you know.

Mr. Edwards is prosecuting a civil case against Dillon

Transport, against Kenneth Jennings, and against Miguel

Garcia. And I am also prosecuting -- I'm defending that

case against -- from Mr. Garcia and against them, and

I'm prosecuting, civilly prosecuting, Dillon and Kenneth

Jennings for damages. And justice in a civil system is

money justice. There is nothing but money justice. And

I understand it's open to abuse and it's open to

opportunity from people. So I have a number of

questions here and I think -- I think we're gonna end up

on a good note.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


157

Imagine for a moment that a person -- and

please do not think of a relative or a close person,

because this is a hypothetical, okay?

Imagine for a moment that that person is

severely injured and the damages are clear. They're in

the tens of millions of dollars, the numbers are just

astronomical, okay? And that I happen to be their

lawyer. So far with me?

Here's a couple of questions. Should I be

fearful and timid that the defense may call me greedy

and only ask for a fraction of that number, or should I

ask for the appropriate amount? I need to have some

specific questions of -- some specific answers.

Mr. Benavidez, what should I -- should I ask for a

fraction, just for fear that they're gonna call me

greedy, or should I ask for the appropriate amount, sir?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 9: You should ask

for whatever they're responsible for.

MR. BLANCO: I agree. How about you

Ms. Torres, should I ask for a reduced amount or should

I ask for the appropriate?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 5: I agree,

appropriate.

MR. BLANCO: For appropriate.

Mr. Pesek, you might just have that frown

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


158

normally in your face, but I've seen that frown, you

know. And people tell me the same thing and I'm going

like, I'm the happiest person alive as I'm frowning all

over the place. What do you think, sir?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 24: No, ask for the

fair amount.

MR. BLANCO: Okay. I was in Denver one

time and just said -- you know, Ms. Shea, a fellow who

proclaimed to be a tort reformer, he'd tell me, you

should ask for four times as much so maybe you'd get

what you want. And I said, you know, that's just

unfair. It's just unfair. So here's my next question.

Will you give me a fair opportunity to show you all of

the evidence? I mean, give it all in front of you,

nothing hidden from you, like I said a little earlier,

the good, the bad, the ugly. So that you can make a

fair determination of what the right amount is. Will

you give me an opportunity to do that during the trial?


MR. BLANCO: If you're going to, raise your

number. If you're not going to, do not raise your

number.

(A show of hands.)

MR. BLANCO: Are you going to give me a

fair opportunity? Ms. 46, you have a hard time in there

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


159

raising your number. Why is that, ma'am?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 46: I didn't hear

the end of it and then you repeated it.

MR. BLANCO: Oh, I see.

The question is: Will you give me a fair

opportunity to show you all the proper evidence? I

mean, so that you can make a fair determination. All

right?

Great. You can lower it. I did not see

any numbers. I want you to all come to the end of the

trial and they'll be only 12 or 14 of you, depending if

we will lose some of you. And I want you to imagine

that you're sitting there and you're looking -- you're

looking at the evidence and you -- with all your fellow

jurors, you have broken the evidence up, you have sliced

it, you have poked at it, you -- you're looking at the

eyes of everybody. And you're thinking, you know, when

this trial started, there's no way I thought this was

going to be in the tens of millions of dollars, just no

way. But I'm looking at the evidence now and it is. So

here's my question.

If you are persuaded by the evidence, and

the law allows it, meaning the law says that this is the

rule that we follow, do you see -- do each and every one

of you see yourselves having the opportunity and the

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


160

ability to establish a verdict in those numbers? Again,

the evidence has persuaded you and the law allows it.

If you are not, if you cannot, just say, you know what,

too, too much money, please raise your number.

Mr. Horowitz, No. 37, No. 16, did you raise your number,

Mr. Hinojosa, No. 4?


MR. BLANCO: Anybody else?


MR. BLANCO: All right. And the last area

that I have for you.

You know, we all like to do things when

we're not working or we're not under duties, we all like

to do things and I call them things we like. I like to

read. I read a lot already. But whenever I'm off, I

like to read, you know, and spend time, I like to --

what my girls call it, "hang out" with my girls, nothing

for me than better than to have a hug from my

nine-year-old. I mean, it's just -- dads, you all know

what that means.

So, let me pick on a couple of you just for

a minute and ask you, what are the things that you like

to do?

Mr. Reta, Tomas Reta? I don't think I've

heard from you, sir.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


161


MR. BLANCO: What things do you like to do

for enjoyment, things you enjoy?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 44: Just, you know,

bike riding, bicycle riding, not motorcycle.

MR. BLANCO: Right.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 44: And going to the

movies.

MR. BLANCO: Uh-huh. Something about bike

riding, my wife loves bike riding. Something about it

is just wonderful for the mood, I guess, or the health,

yeah.

Okay. Who else? Who else would like to

share with us what they like to do? Yes?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 10: Fishing and

hunting. Fishing and hunting.

MR. BLANCO: Fishing and hunting. Okay.

Here locally?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 10: Yeah, here

locally. Well, about 60 miles south, hunting. Fishing

locally, wade fishing.

MR. BLANCO: Okay. The Laguna Madre is a

wonderful place to fish.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 10: The biggest

trout pulled out of there.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


162

MR. BLANCO: Yeah. You should ask -- you

should ask Mr. Smith about it. He'd really like to be

out there.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 10: They're hitting

at Packery right now.

MR. BLANCO: Okay. One more, please. Yes,

sir.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 15: I have my own

fishing boat, so I do a lot of fishing.

MR. BLANCO: Yeah. That was Mr. Jasso,

right, Number 15?


MR. BLANCO: For the folks that have

answered the questions, those are for the rest of you

all. How would you think your life would be different,

Mr. Amaya, if you couldn't hunt or fish at all anymore?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 10: Well, if it was

changed from an accident, like Mr. Garcia, it would

affect me a lot. I mean, I have a daughter, she's

young, but I do also get outside and play with her too,

so it would affect me a lot.

MR. BLANCO: How about you, Mr. Jasso?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 15: It would

definitely affect my life forever.

MR. BLANCO: How about you, Mr. Peta (sic)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


163

-- Peta (sic), not being able to ride that bike in the

afternoons or morning, how would that change your life?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 44: Well, I mean,

you know, I'd miss it a lot, you know. It's something I

like to do and if I couldn't do it.

MR. BLANCO: Well, the reason I'm asking

folks is because at the end of the trial, in addition to

all of these damages, you'll see that the law has

categories, but we're altogether, the 12 that are left.

You know, us, the lawyers, giving you the evidence, you

know, you discussing it. We are going to have to

establish values for those things, not a price, not a

dollar number, but what is the value in U.S. currency

for those things? And you know, we've been doing this

for over 240 years. You'll have the guidance of the

Judge. You'll have your common sense and talk to each

other. But we're gonna be talking about why it is that

the evidence establishes these numbers, because part it

is part of being human. It's our ability to enjoy our

lives.

Your Honor, am I over time? I have one

last area that I --

THE COURT: Go ahead.

MR. BLANCO: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Area or question?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


164

MR. BLANCO: It will be three questions

about an area.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. BLANCO: I had a judge one time that

said, Mr. Blanco, never say "a couple of more

questions." And I said, okay. I agree. We're in a

trial, and defense counsel says, when he gets up, when

the judge asks, do you have anymore questions? And the

gentleman says, a couple. And so he says the first

question, the second question, and the judge says,

that's two, sit down, Counsel. So I always say

specifically what I mean.

All right. So, for the last two and a half

hours, close to three now, we've been talking about what

the law calls, a negligence case. That is when somebody

does something wrong, shouldn't have been done, it is

what's called negligence, and they hurt somebody, the

question is. But there are other civil cases, one of

which is gross negligence. And gross negligence, the

Judge, his Honor is gonna give you-all the information

when we get there. Gross negligence is when somebody

knows that somebody's dangerous, that is likely to hurt

somebody, and with reckless or willful disregard for the

safety of others, they do it anyways. And there is a

charge against Dillon Transport that -- of that gross

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


165

negligence. Now, the law is fair and it requires a

higher level of proof. It's called a clear and

convincing level of proof. And that's what I want to

talk to you about. At the end of this case, when we

have given you all of the evidence, if you are persuaded

-- same question that we have. If you are persuaded

that Dillon Transport trucking company, acted with

willful disregard for the safety of the public, in

addition to all of the other damages that we have

already established, are you willing and capable of

establishing additional damages for that willful

disregard of the safety of the public? So I can see

Mr. Horowitz already smiling and shaking his head. I

don't think Mr. Horowitz could do it. Right,

Mr. Horowitz?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 37: You know, I

wouldn't.

MR. BLANCO: Anybody else? I mean, if it

is proven, the safeguards of the law says -- gives a

person who is accused of being reckless and willful,

disregarding of the rights of others, is that the

evidence has to be clear and convincing. Okay. So you

have -- it always has to be clear. It has to be clear

evidence. And you are -- you have to be convinced

because of that clear and convincing. The question is,

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


166

if I prove it to you, do you have any challenges

establishing those type of damages, they're called

punitive damages in a civil case? If you have a

problem, please raise your card.


MR. BLANCO: All right. I know, Your

Honor, I will remember other questions, but I think I'm

out of time.

THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, why don't

you take -- stand up, take a break, okay, by that I mean

just stand up, take a deep breath, walk around, kind of

unglue your joints a little bit so that we can get

started on the rest. Is there anyone that needs a

restroom break? Okay. Then what we're gonna do is

we're gonna break for ten minutes. There are restrooms

on every floor and if there is a run on our restrooms,

remember, you can take the elevator up to every floor

and there will be restrooms. Please try to be back by

-- in ten minutes so we can get started.

(Recess.)

THE BAILIFF: All accounted for, Judge.

THE COURT: Go ahead.

MR. CHAVES: I'm gonna turn that one off.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 41: Excuse me,

there's a gentleman missing. We have somebody missing.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


167

MR. CHAVES: We got one juror missing.

THE COURT: Oh, who's that?

MR. CHAVES: Oh, never mind. It be 40 or

50, something like that. 31?

THE COURT: Okay. I think we're okay.

MR. CHAVES: I think we're waiting on that

one juror.

THE COURT: That'll be fine. And he's

here. Everybody's prompt. I like this jury.

Mr. Chaves, are you starting or Mr. Warren?

MR. CHAVES: I'm starting, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Very good. You may proceed.

MR. CHAVES: Thank you.

May it please the Court, counsel. I guess,

the first question I have, is does anyone not like

cherry pie?

Okay. All right. Look, the Court gives

all the parties a short opportunity to present our side

of the case, and in so doing, the Court gives each

lawyer's side a few seconds to tell you a little bit

about what the case is about. That way, when you hear

the questions that we're about to ask you, it makes a

little bit more sense why we're asking you these

questions. I think the Judge explained that the object

of us being here today is to, at the end of the day, try

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


168

to get 12 folks who have no dog in the fight, aren't

biased one way or the other, and they're gonna hopefully

call it the way they see it and that's what our goal is.

But in order to do that, I think it's fair to you guys

to let you know a little bit about this accident.

Back on March, I believe, 3rd of 2013,

outside of Sinton on Highway 188, there's a curve. And

in that curve, my client is driving an 18-wheeler and is

approaching the curve, and on the -- from the opposite

direction, Mr. Garcia's driving a motorcycle approaching

the same curve. The passenger on Mr. Garcia's

motorcycle is Mrs. Gamez. And as they pass each other,

there is a collision or a contact between them, and as a

result of that contact, the accident results and a

dispute arises as to whose fault that accident is.

The parties have not been able to resolve

their differences, and we're here today to let 12,

hopefully, people who have no interest in this lawsuit,

try to resolve that difference, that -- those factual

disputes as to whose fall the accident was, who caused

the accident, and what are the resulting damages that

resulted from this accident?

Now is not the time for me to try to argue

the case. Now is not the time for me to present all the

evidence, but it's really just to give you that little

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


169

synopsis so that we -- when we do, like I said, ask you

these questions, it makes more sense why we're asking

you and who's asking who what.

Ms. Gamez, as a result of this accident,

has filed a lawsuit claiming that Mr. Jennings was

negligent in the way that he drove. We're here to

defend ourselves. We're here to show you that we were

not negligent, nor did we do anything that caused this

accident. Ms. Gamez has also sued Dillon Trucking which

is my client, Mr. Jennings back there, it's his company

that he works for. And they're making out various

allegations about training, and things like that, that

Mr. Warren will talk about later on. But my

responsibility is to come before you and talk about what

is being alleged -- I'll use that word again -- what is

being alleged against Mr. Jennings. There's no facts

that have been proven and I don't believe that there

will be any facts, ultimately, that will prove that

Mr. Jennings did anything wrong that caused this

accident.

Ms. Gamez has also sued Mr. Garcia, saying

that we think Mr. Jennings and Dillon caused this

accident, but we also think Mr. Garcia caused the

accident. We agreed that Mr. Garcia did cause the

accident. It's our position that Mr. Garcia caused this

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


170

accident because he came too close to the yellow line.

He was driving on the yellow line and then crossed over

it when --

MR. EDWARDS: Your Honor, I'm gonna object

into going into the contested evidence.

MR. CHAVES: That's just --

THE COURT: You may do a brief opening, not

the position of the parties.

MR. CHAVES: Of course. Thank you.

And so that is gonna be the dispute and

that is what you guys are gonna be called upon to

decide.

Now, I want -- I want to start out by

letting each of you know, or everyone know, that there's

no right or wrong answers to what you've given. I think

we've gotten a pretty good lesson both from Mr. Edwards

and Mr. Blanco that did ask the type of questions to try

to get answers to see if any -- any of you are bias or

prejudice in this way. And I'd like to start off by

just saying, giving a couple of silly examples. For

example, you don't judge a case because one side is from

Corpus Christi and the other side is from Dallas, Texas,

from one of the parties. When you come into a court of

law, you judge it on the facts, not who they are, not

the color of their skin, not for what state they're

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


171

from, not whether they work for a big company or they're

individuals. Everyone, according to the law, and

hopefully, everyone who takes an oath as a juror judges

everyone equally and fairly.

Let me give you a good example of who can

be a very fair juror but might not be a fair juror in

this case. My wife, for example, if she was sitting out

with you guys, I might say, she makes a great witness.

Mr. Edwards might say, well, wait a minute, she's your

wife, and I want her struck. And he would probably be

in a good position, unless he'd be my wife, who never

agrees with anything I say. But he would be in a good

position to understand that you don't want someone who

has an appearance of bias, or an appearance of -- or may

have some prejudice against one side or the other. And

so at the end of the day, what we're looking for is, are

those type of jurors.

Now, I'm gonna give you three secrets that

most veniremen, and that's what you guys are called

right now -- really never hear. And what happens is,

almost everyone says, this is the time that we pick the

jury. And Judge Watts was very accurate, and very

correct when she said, we don't really pick a jury. I

cannot say, like I said, I'd like for you to be my

juror, and I'd wish you to be my juror, Mr. Adame, and

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


172

Mr. Horowitz, I wish you would be my juror. It doesn't

work that way. We don't get to pick jurors. What we

get to do is what's called strikes. We could say, we

don't like you, Mr. Horowitz. We don't like you,

Mr. Adame, or we don't like you. And both sides get to

strike six people. And the first 12 people who have not

been struck, those are our jurors.

The second secret I'm gonna give you is

that people who talk up a lot, we get to get to know

you. And those who keep quiet and don't talk to us, at

the end of the day, we go back to the room and say, what

did that person say? I don't know. He didn't say very

much or she didn't say very much. So I don't want to

strike her because I really don't know. So if you want

to get on the jury, don't talk. If you -- and what I

mean by that, really, and I'm making a little bit of

light of it, but I want everyone to talk. Now is the

time to talk. Because right now is the only opportunity

that you and I can talk to each other. Judge Watts told

you, once the jury is sworn in, aside from saying, good

morning, that's about it. We might be able to say good

evening or something, if we get on the elevator

together, but we cannot talk to you. We can't offer you

no coffee, no ride, no water. And sometimes it even

sounds like we're being rude by maybe turning around, if

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


173

you're getting on the elevator, we don't want to even

get on the same elevator. And the reason we don't want

to do it is because Judge Watts has some very strict

rules as do the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Lawyers

cannot talk to jurors once they're impaneled because you

want to avoid the appearance of impropriety. So if you

want to talk to me, ask me any questions, now's the time

to do it. If you want to say, Mr. Chaves, I don't

understand this, or I can't -- you know, I didn't

understand when Mr. Edwards was explaining this, now's

the time to do it. We will -- all of us will give you

the best answer that we possibly can. Okay?

All right. Now, the very first question I

have is, I'm -- I wrote down some notes on the very

first question that was asked of you and that was, do

any of you know the lawyers or the parties? And I wrote

down 6, 33, 43, 63, but I -- but I'm not too sure

because I was sitting down at the time, that I got all

the numbers right. So let me ask that question.

Do any of you know any of the lawyers in

this case? And I'm gonna set Mr. Edwards aside. I'm

not talking about advertisement lawyers. I'm talking

about personally know or members of their law firm?


MR. CHAVES: Okay. Does anyone know any of

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


174

the parties? Okay. And that's No. 6, No. 33, No. 54,

No. 46 and No. 61. Okay.

Mr. Sada, how do you know -- what party do

you know?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 6: Theresa Gamez.

MR. CHAVES: Ms. Gamez?


MR. CHAVES: How do you know, Ms. Gamez?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 6: She's like an

aunt to me. She's my uncle's ex-wife.

MR. CHAVES: Okay. So she was your aunt

formerly?


MR. CHAVES: Okay. I think I can easily

say that since you know her, I gather it would be

difficult for you to sit in this case and judge her?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 6: I don't know.

MR. CHAVES: You don't know. Okay. How

long was she -- how long was she your aunt?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 6: A long time. I

was always at her house when I was little.

MR. CHAVES: Okay. You know, and there's

nothing wrong with obviously, I mean, you don't control

the fact that she was your aunt and I guess now she's

your ex-aunt or you used to call her aunt.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


175

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 6: We still call her

that.

MR. CHAVES: Do you still consider her your

aunt?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 6: We still

communicate sometimes.

MR. CHAVES: Okay. Like I was talking,

like sometimes, you know, you might be a great juror,

but in this particular case, since she's your aunt,

obviously, it would be a little bit difficult for you to

be fair and impartial, correct?


MR. CHAVES: Okay. And I'm gonna ask the

same type of questions that Mr. Edwards asked. This is

something that you already have a bias in favor of her

because she's your aunt? You would be leaning towards

her?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 6: Yeah, family.

MR. CHAVES: Okay. All right. No, I

understand. And again, there's nothing wrong with that.

Given the fact that she is family and that you would be

leaning towards her, if the Judge put you in the

courtroom, that's something that you'd be leaning

towards her from the start to finish, right?


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


176

MR. CHAVES: All right. Okay. Number 33,

how do you know -- and you're, Ms. Perrigue?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 33: Perrigue.

MR. CHAVES: Perrigue. Ms. Perrigue, who

do you know, first of all?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 33: Ms. Gamez.

MR. CHAVES: Ms. Gamez? And how do you

know Ms. Gamez.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 33: I'm friends with

her daughter.

MR. CHAVES: Okay. And how old are your

daughters? Your daughter and her daughter?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 33: No, I'm friends

with her daughter.

MR. CHAVES: Oh, you're friends with her

daughter, okay.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 33: Since about the

age of 13 and I'm 30.

MR. CHAVES: Okay. And how long have you

been friends with her daughter?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 33: Since the age of

13.

MR. CHAVES: Since the age of -- I'm sorry.

I'm like Mr. Blanco, you know, I need to listen a little

bit closer. Since like the age -- so it's been a long

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


177

time. Been to her home?


MR. CHAVES: You've known her?


MR. CHAVES: Have you known about this

wreck for a while and the fact that she --

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 33: Yes, and I know

the accident and everything.

MR. CHAVES: Okay.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 33: I'm familiar

with it.

MR. CHAVES: And I gather she told you

about the accident and how it happened and things of

that nature.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 33: I talked to her

daughter around the time that it happened so, I mean, I

know what happened.

MR. CHAVES: Okay. Would you agree with

me, just like Mr. Sada did -- is it Sada?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 6: Sada.

MR. CHAVES: Sada. That given the fact

that you're a close personal friend of the family and

the fact that you know personal -- have some personal

knowledge of the facts that's been related to you, that

you probably would be leaning towards her in this case?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


178


MR. CHAVES: All right. And that's some of

the bias that you feel, if the Judge put you in the box,

that's a bias you couldn't change?


MR. CHAVES: Am I correct?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 33: Yes, you're

correct.

MR. CHAVES: Okay. And just to kind of

button it up, this is -- you're one of those classic

jurors that, you might make a great juror somewhere

else, but in this case, you couldn't be a fair and

impartial juror, could you?


MR. CHAVES: Okay. The same thing with

you, Mr. Sada.


MR. CHAVES: Okay. Number 54. Yes, sir.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 54: I don't

necessarily know, but maybe we run in the same circles

and met her. But as far as knowing her, I think I've

met her, but I don't know anything about this case.

MR. CHAVES: Okay. As far as meeting her,

under what circumstances did you meet her?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 54: Like maybe a

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


179

rally or the Harley shop. We kind of run in the same

circles with riders.

MR. CHAVES: Okay.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 54: So I may have

just met her.

MR. CHAVES: Anything -- anything about

your association in meeting her, knowing her, that would

-- you think --


MR. CHAVES: -- would affect your ability

to be a fair and impartial juror?


MR. CHAVES: Okay. Number 46.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 46: I know Theresa

Gamez. Her daughter's one of my best friends. I've

known her for about 14 years.

MR. CHAVES: Okay. And since her

daughter's your best friend, I gather you know about the

accident?


MR. CHAVES: And as you've sat here, you've

listened and --


MR. CHAVES: -- and would you agree with me

that you would not be a fair and impartial juror?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


180

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 46: Yes. Yes, sir.

MR. CHAVES: Okay. And I'm trying to short

circuit so I don't take two and a half hours, but even

if the Judge puts you in the box and said, follow the

law, this is one of those cases that you would already

have a bias on, true?


MR. CHAVES: Thank you, ma'am. And No. 61.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 61: Mr. Garcia.

It's been over like 30 years. We went to school

together, same neighborhood.

MR. CHAVES: Okay. I'm gonna ask you to

speak a little louder. But as I'm hearing you, I think

I'm hearing that you've known Mr. Garcia for over 30

years.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 61: Well, I haven't

seen him in a long time, in many years. But that's when

I first met him, over 30 years in the neighborhood.

MR. CHAVES: Okay. And how did you meet

him or what was the -- I mean, is it just as friends,

co-worker or what?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 61: He was dating

one of our friends back in the neighborhood.

MR. CHAVES: Anything about knowing him for

over 30 years that you feel that in this case you

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


181

couldn't be a fair and impartial juror?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 61: Under the

circumstances, I did just see him so it might affect --

MR. CHAVES: Okay. You think it would?


and down.)

MR. CHAVES: Is that a, yes?


MR. CHAVES: Okay.

THE COURT: I'm sorry, I did not hear that.

MR. CHAVES: She thought -- well, let me

just repeat it. You think it would affect your --

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 61: I didn't see him

the first time, but when I came back from lunch is when

I saw him and I realized that. But it might affect if I

can be a fair juror.

MR. CHAVES: And in this particular case,

you feel like you'd have a bias towards him because

you've known him? Is that a, yes?


MR. CHAVES: Okay. What hasn't been talked

about very much is some of the witnesses that may

testify. And I'm not gonna go over all of them because

a lot of them are from out of town, but I want to know

if any of you know any of these names.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


182

Laura Harris. She is Ms. Gamez's boss and

runs an Allstate agency. Anybody know Laura Harris?

Okay. And --

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 37: I think I did

business with them years ago.

MR. CHAVES: Okay. Let me just get the

numbers down.


MR. CHAVES: 37, 47 and 48 and 39. All

right. One more time. 37, 47, 48 and 39. Anyone else?

And No. 4, okay. Anyone else know Laura Harris?


MR. CHAVES: Mr. Horowitz, I think we've

talked to you quite a bit. Number 47, how do you know

Laura? Did I get the number right? Number 47?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 47: That's me.

MR. CHAVES: Yeah.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 47: How do I know

her? She's my homeowner's and car insurance agent.

MR. CHAVES: Okay.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 47: Has been for

probably two or three years now.

MR. CHAVES: Okay. No. 48, how do you know

her?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 48: Same way.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


183

MR. CHAVES: Same way?



PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 39: She's my

homeowner's insurance agent. I've never met her.

MR. CHAVES: Okay. And No. 4.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 4: Same thing.

MR. CHAVES: Okay.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 4: Car insurance.

MR. CHAVES: Car insurance. Out of those

four people that know, Laura, is there anything about

knowing her or having insurance from her that would make

you believe her more or be biased one way or the other?


MR. CHAVES: And she's gonna testify about

Ms. Gamez's work and before and after the accident.

Okay. What about Ruben Pena?


MR. CHAVES: Shirley Pena?


MR. CHAVES: Jesse Ybarra?


MR. CHAVES: Cynthia Ybarra?


MR. CHAVES: Anybody know any of those?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


184

Those folks were riding motorcycles on the same day of

the accident as Mr. Garcia was driving. They were

driving together, but further ahead. Anybody know those

folks?


MR. CHAVES: Okay. Now, one of the things

that's fairly obvious, at least to me, is I walk into a

courtroom in a lawsuit of this nature is that there's

individuals versus a company. In this case, Mr. Garcia

and Ms. Gamez are suing Dillon Trucking, and of course,

my driver, my client, Mr. Jennings. And sometimes

jurors are out there saying, well, you're a corporation,

and they're individuals, and I'm gonna line up with the

individuals because I don't like companies. Is there

anyone that feels that just because one side is a

corporation and my client's a driver for that

corporation or that company, that they shouldn't be

treated equally as individuals who walk into the

courtroom?


MR. CHAVES: I think it's fairly easy to

see that, you know, everyone needs to be treated

equally. Everybody agree with that? Raise your hand.

Right?

(A show of hands.)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


185

MR. CHAVES: Okay. Has anyone ever been in

a wreck? Raise your hand.

(A show of hands.)

MR. CHAVES: Keep them up. I want to see

them. Now, of those who have been in a wreck, how many

of you think it was your fault?

(A show of hands.)

MR. CHAVES: Okay. Fair enough. Okay.

Now, I think, with just looking, that I saw about 80

percent of you did not think it was your fault. And

that's a rough guess. But here's my question. There

was a wreck, and a lawsuit's been filed. My client

doesn't believe that it was his fault and we're here to

defend ourselves because of that. But is there anyone

here who feels that simply because he has been sued,

that automatically, he must have done something? And

I'm gonna give you my little story, and it really is

along the criminal lines.

I have a brother, I have a sister, and an

uncle, I have just about everybody in the family will

come and tell me, when a person's arrested, you know

they're guilty it's just how much. I've had lawyers

say, the difference between a person who pleads guilty

and a person who doesn't plead guilty is the one who

doesn't plead guilty regrets it. Meaning that almost

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


186

everybody believes that if you've been arrested, you

must have done something wrong. My first answer is, I'm

not a criminal lawyer. I don't know. But in civil,

there's a lot of people who feel that, well, if you

wouldn't have gotten sued if you hadn't done something

wrong. Does anybody feel that way?


MR. CHAVES: Does anybody feel that if you

get in a wreck and it's not your fault, but you get sued

anyway, that you don't have a right to come in and

defend yourself and say, tell the jury, look juror, I'm

willing to come to the courtroom. I'm willing to say,

I'm not going to just accept what you're accusing me of.

I'm gonna defend myself, I'm gonna present the facts to

the jury, and I'm gonna let the jury decide. Does

anyone blame Mr. Jennings for coming before you and

saying, I want my day in court, I want to be judged by

12 fair and impartial jurors? And I also want every

juror not to judge me because I work for a company, but

judge me because of who I am, and the -- what I did on

the day that I did and the manner that I did it as a

driver of a truck. Does anyone have a problem with

that?


MR. CHAVES: In this case, there are two

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


187

other independent witnesses, one is named Randy Collins.

I want to know if anybody knows Randy Collins. He was

following Mr. Jennings at the time of the accident and

he's gonna tell you what he saw and what he didn't see.

Does anyone know Mr. Collins, I believe. Okay.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 54: He dated my wife

before I dated my wife.

MR. CHAVES: I'm sorry?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 54: He dated my wife

for a little while in high school.

MR. CHAVES: Okay. He's from Boerne,

Texas.


MR. CHAVES: Okay. Wow. Small world.

Okay.

Would the fact that he dated your wife -- I

mean --

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 54: That was 35

years ago, sir.

MR. CHAVES: I'm tempted to ask a bunch of

questions, but I'm not gonna go there.

All right. The other person that you will

hear about, there was another independent witness that

you'll hear is Mr. Teamann and he's from Boerne, Texas.

Anyone know Mr. Teamann?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


188

MR. WARREN: Charlie.

MR. CHAVES: Huh?

MR. WARREN: Charlie.

MR. CHAVES: Yeah, Charlie Teamann. Anyone

know Charlie Teamann?


MR. CHAVES: Okay. Now, I asked the

question a little earlier, has anyone ever been involved

in a wreck and you raised your hands. I do want to know

how many of you have been involved in a wreck that

resulted in a lawsuit. Can you raise your hands? Okay.

And we're gonna go a little bit slower here. From the

first row it's No. 10. Second row, 11 and 12, and 19,

15, 19. Third row, 28 and 30. Fourth row, 47, 48,

Fifth row -- okay, we have 41, 42. Fifth row, I see 56

and 59. The next row is 66, 67. The next row is 71,

75, 77, 78.

Okay. Now, out of those who have just

raised their hand and the numbers I've taken down, how

many of you -- and I think all of you-all indicated that

you-all had gotten in a wreck that resulted in a

lawsuit. How many of you were plaintiffs who brought

the lawsuit? All right. There's my California person.

Number 30 and 28.

THE COURT: There's another one.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


189

MR. CHAVES: 56, 67, 77, and 78. And No.

19. Okay. Let me start off, No. 19, you're the lowest.

Let me -- you were involved in a lawsuit where you sued

somebody?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 19: Yes, it was a

motor vehicle accident. It was a long time ago in my

early 20's.

MR. CHAVES: Early 20's?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 19: I'm in my 40's.

MR. CHAVES: Okay. I wasn't gonna ask.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 19: A long time ago.

It wasn't my fault.

MR. CHAVES: Okay.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 19: I made them stay

there and not even move the vehicles so we took pictures

when the cops came.

MR. CHAVES: Okay. You know, one of the --

and I'm gonna focus in on the people who filed the

lawsuits.


MR. CHAVES: One of the things I worry

about when I'm defending a lawsuit is that, you know, if

you previously filed a lawsuit, whether you have empathy

or say, gee, I remember 10 years ago, I was involved in

a wreck, and I had to sue somebody to get money, and I

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


190

know what they're going through, and I'm on their side

automatically.


MR. CHAVES: You don't feel that way?


MR. CHAVES: Okay. And you can see where

that would be unfair?


MR. CHAVES: To bring in that kind of

feeling into this court?


MR. CHAVES: Okay. Number 30, tell me

about your lawsuit.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 30: Oh, I got

rear-ended on the freeway and the guy tore off the

bumper. It tore off the bumper of the car and I just

wanted my mother-in-law's car fixed and my medical to be

fixed and that was it.

MR. CHAVES: Okay. Same question. The

fact that you brought a lawsuit, could you set that

aside and judge this case?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 30: I could set it

aside.


PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 28: My wife and I

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


191

were driving and I was hit by a drunk driver from

behind. And we just wanted them to pay for the car and

my wife's medical and they didn't pay.

MR. CHAVES: Okay. The same question for

you. Can you set that aside and be fair and impartial

in this case?


MR. CHAVES: All right. I think we jump to

No. 56 as far as you sued someone?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 56: Yes, it was

about a few months ago. She passed a red light and hit

me. I just got my car fixed.

MR. CHAVES: Anything about that incident

or history that would bring you -- bring that sort of

feelings?


MR. CHAVES: Anything that would make you

feel like you're in line with the plaintiff just because

of that?


MR. CHAVES: All right. Number 67, 67.


MR. CHAVES: Okay. Who did you sue?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 67: A gentleman.

MR. CHAVES: A gentleman? Okay. All

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


192

right. Was there a car wreck?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 67: Yes, my car was

totally ugly.

MR. CHAVES: Were you injured in the case?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 67: Yes, I was.

MR. CHAVES: Okay. And --

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 67: I'm sorry. All

I know is this --

MR. CHAVES: No, no, no. We're just really

trying to find out if you had some experience that would

cause you to feel uncomfortable about being in this

lawsuit?


MR. CHAVES: Okay. How long ago was that?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 67: Maybe six years.


PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 67: Maybe about six

years.

MR. CHAVES: Okay. Number 77, yes, ma'am.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 77: I was rear-ended

by an employee from Ford Motor Company that was test

driving a vehicle.

MR. CHAVES: Okay. Same question, anything

about that?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 77: It's been like

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


193

over 20 years.

MR. CHAVES: Twenty years ago. You don't

feel like it would influence you one way or the other?


MR. CHAVES: All right. And the last one I

have is 78.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 78: I got T-boned by

and totalled the car (inaudible) --

MR. CHAVES: Okay. Okay. Well, there's no

allegations in this case of anybody being drunk, there's

no -- as a matter of fact, there's no allegations in

this case about excessive speed or that anybody was

speeding or anything like that. So, anything that in

your memory banks that would make you go back and say, I

can't be fair and impartial in this case?


PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 78: I actually have

one question.


PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 78: I have one

question.

MR. CHAVES: Yes, sir.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 78: What type of

motorcycle was involved in the accident? Was it a

cruiser or was it a sport bike?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


194

MR. CHAVES: A cruiser, right?

MR. WARREN: A cruiser.

MR. CHAVES: Yeah, a cruiser.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 78: A cruiser.


PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 78: A full size

cruiser?

MR. CHAVES: I believe so.

MR. WARREN: It's a Honda Goldwing.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 78: A Goldwing.

MR. CHAVES: Yeah, a Honda Goldwing.

Okay. I don't -- does anybody know me?


MR. CHAVES: Okay. I don't do television

ads. I do represent people who have been injured

before, like Mr. Edwards. But I also represent

defendants. I do both sides of the docket and so, I

know what it's like when I'm over there on that side of

the courtroom bringing a lawsuit, that you're seeking to

establish your case. And one of the things that you

haven't, perhaps been told, is that there's really the

third secret that I was gonna tell you about in jury

selection and it's really no secret at all. Because the

Judge told you that in our country, we don't let

government officials make decisions when there's a

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


195

dispute between its citizens. There's a court of law.

By the way, it's a public courtroom. You can come here

any day of the week and you can see murder trials, you

can see custody battles, you can see lawsuits like this

between corporations, you can see a variety of cases.

This is your courtroom, this is your courthouse. We,

the citizens, pay for this courthouse and the privilege.

And I'll tell you, it is a privilege to serve as a

juror. I've had a good fortune to travel around the

world when I was much younger and study with a lot of

law professors and judges. We studied the Soviet Union

and went over there and studied their judicial system

and how they make their decisions. And the one question

I was asked over and over and over again. How in the

world do you trust people who know nothing about the

case, who you pick off from the schools, clerks,

truckers, teachers, and bring them into the room, they

don't know anybody, they don't know anything about the

case? How in the world do you trust them? And they

were amazed and marvelled at how we trusted our citizens

to make decisions for them and resolve disputes. It

really is -- I agree with Judge Watts, it's one of the

most wonderful systems in the world, and we have a lot

of people who have -- how many veterans do we have here?

(A show of hands.)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


196

MR. CHAVES: I'm telling you, thank you

guys for your service and gals these days. But I'm

telling you, this is one of the systems that we fight

for.

The Judge talked about some revolutions,

and there's been a lot of bloodshed and tears, and one

of the things we fight for is to maintain our jury

system because it is -- it works. We're gonna take 12

of you and the 12 of you are gonna sit there and listen

to the facts. And they're gonna be disputed facts. We

have -- we have -- we're biased. We have our own view

of things and we can't resolve our differences so we're

gonna let you do it, the 12 of you make that decision.

And you heard -- I mean, Mr. Blanco said, you know, does

anybody blame, if you have to come and bring into court

to prove your case to get justice? Well, we want

justice too. Justice is a two-way street. Is there

anyone that will not give justice to both sides?


MR. CHAVES: All right. Now, let me tell

you that in civil cases, the Judge alluded to this a

little bit earlier, the plaintiff gets to go first.

That's just the nature of the beast. Mr. Edwards is

gonna get to go first, and I have to sit here and let

him finish his voir dire. And then Mr. Blanco goes, and

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


197

I have to wait and let him finish, and then I get my

chance. All right. That's just the rules. They're

procedural rules, we have to follow them. And sometimes

when they go first, you begin to hear all of their side

of the story, and it's -- it's like -- my mom used to

tell me, when my brother would go up and said that I did

something wrong and my mom would come out and say, why

did you do this? And I said, whoa, whoa, whoa, wait.

Did you hear the whole story? And when they heard the

whole story, when they heard all of the evidence, there

was a difference of opinion. And what I'm trying to say

here is, will each of you promise me that you will not

make up your mind in this case until you've heard all of

the evidence? Because they're gonna get to go first.

And by the way, it's not gonna be for one day, it's not

gonna be for two hours. It's gonna be for a day, I

think Thursday, Friday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, to

all of next week, I think. And you're gonna hear a lot

of evidence just from one side. But you're not -- and

meanwhile, I can't get up and say, well, wait a minute,

I'd like to put in one witness in there somewhere. This

jury -- all the jury is hearing is one side. That's not

the way the rules work. Will each of you promise me to

say, you know what, we've heard -- we're only hearing

one side. We've got to wait until we hear both sides of

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


198

the story before we can make up our mind. Does anyone

have a problem with that?


MR. CHAVES: Let me take it one step

further. There's something called the adverse party

rule. It's a procedural rule under Texas Rules of

Evidence -- of Procedure, that says if Mr. Edwards or

Mr. Blanco want to call my witnesses during their case,

they can do it. Meaning, tomorrow morning, my client,

Mr. Jennings, may be the very first witness, because

they can adversely call him. Now, they're not being

sneaky bad lawyers if they do that. That's just an

option that they have if they want to do that. But it

places me in the position that my witness will have

testified, and when it comes to my turn, there's no need

to put Mr. Jennings back on. And if they call all of my

witnesses, like, I plan on calling Mr. Collins, Charlie

Teamann, Dr. Perez, Dr. Dennis, Dirk Smith and

Mr. Sievers. And if they call all of those out of line,

then I don't have anybody. And I may have a juror say,

well, you know what, gee, they called 22 witnesses and

you called zero witnesses, therefore, I'm gonna vote

with them. And here's the question. Because the Court

and the law will tell you that you don't judge a case on

the number of witnesses that one side calls versus the

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


199

other one. If that was the case then we'd always be --

he'd call 20 witnesses and I'd make sure I'd call 25.

And if I called 25, he'd make sure he called 30. And

there would be a never ending battle of who could call

the most witnesses. That's not the way you judge a

case. The way you judge a case is on what evidence

comes in and what you believe. What is the credible

weight that you give to that evidence? And whether

Mr. Edwards calls it, that witness, Mr. Blanco calls

that witness, or whether I call that witness, or

Mr. Warren, you're to give that witness that equal

weight, irrespective of who calls them. Will everybody

promise to do that? You-all follow me?

(General response.)

MR. CHAVES: Okay. And the reason -- like

I said, that's important because, if you didn't do that

otherwise we'd be calling the same witnesses and you'd

be hearing the same thing over and over and over again.

And the biggest gripe I hear from jurors is: We've

heard enough. Keep it short. Let's get on with it.

I think you're feeling that way right now.

Okay. But there are -- there are a lot -- couple of

more things I need to talk to you about.

In cases of this nature, you will hear not

only from the factual witnesses who saw the accident.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


200

First of all, you're gonna hear from the parties.

Mr. Jennings is gonna tell you what he did. Mr. Garcia

is gonna tell you what he did. Ms. Gamez is gonna tell

you what she remembers. Those are the people involved

in the accident. You will also hear from the witnesses,

the independent witnesses who have no dog in the fight.

That's Mr. Collins. I think it's Collins, Jr., and

Collins, III, who were following Mr. Jennings. And you

will hear from Charles Teamann who was following

Mr. Garcia's motorcycle. Excuse me. But in addition to

those factual witnesses, you will hear what's called

reconstruction experts. Experts who have come by on

both sides and they've tried to piece back the accident

as best they could and give you their version of what

they think happened. All these witnesses will come one

by one. It's not like a TV show. We can't do

everything in 30 minutes. So it is gonna take some

time. But I want you to listen to every witness and

base your decision on what factually they're telling

you. Is there anyone that feels that they cannot base

or listen to the evidence in this case and listen to the

witnesses?


MR. CHAVES: Okay. Let me tell you one

other thing. Procedurally, there is something called

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


201

depositions. Most witnesses we'll be able to call live

in this case. There are a few that are called by video

deposition. The Court will probably tell you, and I

think all the lawyers agree, that you are to give equal

weight to the deposition testimony that's played for

you. The testimony is before a court reporter, sworn

to, as in a court of law, and all the lawyers are there

to question the witness. But some of them can't be here

because they're from Georgia, or from out of town, or

for whatever reason they can't be here. Is there anyone

that would not give credence or equal weight to

testimony that's presented by deposition? It's going to

be a video.


MR. CHAVES: All right. Now, I believe one

question that you asked earlier and it's -- Spears,

Ms. Spears. You asked the question, do I have to award

the amount you're asking for? Let me be very direct.

No, you don't. You are the sole judges of the weight

and the credibility -- let me repeat those two words --

the weight and the credibility of each witness that

testifies and every piece of evidence that comes in. If

you believe it and say, you know what, I believe what

that guy was saying, you have a right to do that. And

if you say, you know, I heard -- I heard the mouth

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


202

moving, but I ain't believing what's coming out. You

have that right too. And if a lawyer is asking for tens

of millions, apparently, you have a right to put

whatever number you feel is a fair amount based on the

evidence. It's that simple. Yes, sir?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 4: If I can ask, I

don't know, so the individual is being sued for monetary

damages?

MR. CHAVES: Yes, sir.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 4: The individual?

MR. CHAVES: Mr. Jennings, yes, sir.


MR. CHAVES: And that's why he's here to

defend himself. And we'll be happy to present the

evidence to you and let you make that decision, if

there's any fault at all. But I'm glad you asked that

question, Mr. Hinojosa. Because one of the things, when

jurors are listening to experts come in and say, well,

they should have done this, or should have done this, or

could have done this or would have done that is they're

giving their opinions about what they think should have

happened, I guess, to put it nicely. But the Judge is

gonna ask you, the Court's gonna ask you to judge both

sides fairly and equally, and base your decision on the

evidence, okay? And that doesn't mean hindsight. That

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


203

doesn't mean, could you have done it better, would you

have done it differently, because I think everyone knows

that if you were in an accident and you said, well, if I

hadn't gotten up five minutes earlier, I wouldn't have

been involved in that accident. And believe me, I've

been involved in lawsuits where experts come in and say,

well, the accident happened because he drank two cups of

coffee instead of one cup of coffee. If he had just

left earlier the accident wouldn't have happened. Or

the accident wouldn't have happened if he had just sped

up a little bit and there wouldn't have been anybody

there. Or the accident wouldn't have -- if you come up

with all these Monday morning quarterbacking with

hindsight. And hindsight's perfect 20/20. Boy, you get

people in there after an accident happens and they can

tell you, for the right price, what -- how an accident

could have happened. But you are gonna be judged --

called upon to judge what a human being, what an

ordinary reasonably prudent individual would have done

under the same or similar circumstances, not what a

super human being would have done, not what someone with

20/20 hindsight, but someone who -- what an ordinary

prudent and reasonable person would have done in the

same or similar circumstances.

Is there anyone that feels that they could

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


204

not follow that instruction if it's given to you by the

Court?


MR. CHAVES: All right. Now, a lot of

questions have been asked and I'm trying not to go over

a lot of them because, you know, it's just really

obviously being repetitive. But I want to talk to you

-- I do want to talk to you about prejudice. We've

talked about bias, and I want to talk to you about

prejudice. And I'm not talking about black and white.

Mr. Jennings is an African American. I hope the days

are gone that we even have to talk about that kind of

stuff. At least in our community, I don't think we do.

But I do want to talk about prejudice

against 18-wheelers. Now, I'm gonna do the opposite of

Mr. Edwards. He talked about prejudices against

motorcycle drivers. And does anyone -- there's a lot of

people who feel like -- some people I know that say, you

know what, those 18-wheelers, they come down barreling

down the road, run me off, all this truck traffic going

up and down the roads, I don't like it. I just don't

like truck drivers.

Now, I don't have a dog story to tell you

when I was 12 years old. But I do want you to reach

into your memory banks and if there's anything, any

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


205

experience that you have or anything that tells you that

you just don't like 18-wheelers. As a matter of fact,

you don't have to have any experience. Is there anyone

here that just doesn't like 18-wheeler drivers?


MR. CHAVES: Anyone?


MR. CHAVES: Mr. Jasso. Is that -- I know

you're a truck driver. But do people ever just tell you

they don't like drivers like you?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 15: Not really.

MR. CHAVES: Okay. All right. More

importantly, more importantly, will everyone treat a

truck driver the same as anybody else? I would think

and hope that Mr. Edwards wants everyone to treat a

motorcycle driver the same way with, equally. And I'm

in total agreement with that. I think in this case,

both sides, we have an 18-wheeler and we have a

motorcycle which is probably a little bit unusual. But

does everyone agree that both the 18-wheeler truck

driver and the motorcycle driver should be treated

fairly and equally?

UNIDENTIFIED PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes.

MR. CHAVES: Okay. The question was asked

in a funny way, but my memory is -- it was either

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


206

Mr. Blanco or Mr. Edwards asked the question like, would

everyone agree that we all ought to start out even? And

there's a very natural tendency to say everybody ought

to start out even. But let me tell you what the law

says. In this country, and in this state, and in this

county, anybody can file a lawsuit for any reason.

Shocking as that might sound. There is something called

a frivolous lawsuit that you can get punished if you

file it frivolously. But aside from that, pay your

filing fee and you can go and make allegations for

whatever you want and ask for as much money as you want.

Fortunately, the law also requires that if you do do

that, you have the burden of proof. So that if I'm

being alleged to have done something, or if Mr. Jennings

is alleged to have done something wrong, Mr. Jennings

could just sit here and say, prove it. I don't think

you did anything wrong. I don't think I did anything

wrong. And the burden is on the plaintiff to prove his

case. And it's not an easy burden, by the way. It's by

a preponderance of the evidence. You have to come in

and put on evidence that he did something wrong and that

what he did caused the -- was a proximate cause of the

accident and that this was his fault. And so, it really

ought to start out this way because we don't -- you

know, the burden is on them to prove that we did

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


207

something wrong. But we're not coming before you and

gonna sit and wait for that. We're prepared to put on

our evidence and say, well, we didn't do anything wrong.

And to the contrary, we think you did something wrong to

cause the accident. And even though it's not our

burden, we're gonna come before you and put on evidence

and show you how this accident really happened and whose

fault this accident really is.

And I think you heard Mr. Blanco said, at

the end of the day, I think this is gonna be a

comparative. I think it's gonna be Mr. Blanco is at

fault and we think that --

MR. BLANCO: Yes, I am at fault.

MR. CHAVES: -- Mr. Blanco's client is at

fault and that Mr. Jennings is at fault. And we

disagree. We do think, at the end of the day, that the

-- yes, yes, sir?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 4: Was there any

tickets issued?

MR. CHAVES: That is something that the

Court does not allow me to go into.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 4: So there was no

insurance?

THE COURT: They get to briefly talk about

their case. They don't get to try the case in voir

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


208

dire.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 4: All right.

MR. CHAVES: Okay. My point is, the burden

is on them to prove the case, okay? Yes, sir?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 10: If we are one of

the 12 elected, can we ask any questions at any time?

MR. CHAVES: The rules do not allow that.

You know, it's interesting you ask that. In some

states, once you're on the jury, you can ask questions

or even write questions up to the judge. But during

trial and in this state, we -- it's generally not

allowed.

Now, the Judge can do whatever she wants.

And you know, sometimes some Judges do allow that, I

think, but --

THE COURT: I'll allow you to take notes,

but until we have greater guidance on that, I don't want

to have to retry the case because I made a ruling that

is not -- I know, in a capital murder case,

Judge Villarreal allowed that and he was reversed. So

we do not have any guidance right now as far as the

Rules of Civil Procedure. You will not be able to

engage in questions of any of the witnesses or pass

notes to the judge to ask those questions. If it makes

you feel any better, I don't get to ask questions

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


209

either.

MR. CHAVES: And like I said, in some

states that's allowed, but here it's generally not. So

-- but it's our job to anticipate all the questions that

a juror may ask. And I can tell you, Mr. Blanco,

Mr. Edwards, Mr. Warren and myself, we're gonna try to

anticipate every question that you possibly could think

of. And I think we're gonna do a pretty good job at it,

but lawyers miss things too. And you'd be surprised how

jurors sometimes see things that we don't because we're

in the middle of things, but it's up to you to -- to

listen, that's why we want you to listen. And I want

you to listen to every -- every witness. Listen to

every piece of evidence.

Now, one of the things, we've been talking

about is fault and liability. And Mr. Blanco's correct.

You will be asked a question as to -- and it's not

really -- the question is, whose negligence, if any,

proximately caused the occasion in question? And it's

gonna be A, Mr. Garcia, or it might be Mr. Jennings, but

it's gonna be the parties. Mr. Garcia, Mr. Jennings,

and as far as causing the accident itself, and it may be

Mr. -- Dillon Trucking, I don't know. But you'll be

asked to determine whether any of the parties were at

fault or no party was at fault. That's going to be up

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


210

to you. Just like the damage question, Ms. Spears, it's

the same thing with the liability. You get to be the

judge of -- and -- of the credibility and the weight

that you give each witness and every piece of evidence.

Okay. Now, let me talk to you about

damages. There's no question that in this case there

was some serious damages. No one's gonna pretend

otherwise. Mr. Garcia has his leg amputated below the

knee, and a finger, I believe, and there's some --

there's some serious damages which were sustained. We

do not agree with the extent of all of the damages, and

that's gonna be for the medical testimony for you to

hear. And both Mr. Edwards and Mr. Blanco are correct

that that will be disputed. I don't need to go into

that here, but you will hear no one question, obviously,

that this was a serious case of injuries. But not to

the extent that they're claiming, because a couple of

things that they're claiming is traumatic brain injury

as a result of this. And so, one of the questions that

forces me to ask, is there anyone here who has a family

member who has sustained or makes claims of a traumatic

brain injury after an accident? Okay. Mr. Ortiz?


MR. CHAVES: I mean, I'm sorry, Ms. Ortiz.

Okay. Maricela.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


211


MR. CHAVES: And was it a family member

that?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 63: It is a family

member and it wasn't through an accident or anything

like that. But my brother had an aneurism and

throughout the past three years we have been trying to

work with his attorney and the courts to get him some

sort of support and help. He has not been released by

his doctors to go back to work. So it has been a

tedious, kind of an overwhelming process for him and for

me, as his sister, to help support him and his family to

survive, and have ends meet and paying regular daily

bills and stuff. So it's been challenging for us as a

family.

MR. CHAVES: I understand. Number 4. Yes,

sir? Number 4.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 4: Yes. My nephew

was killed and my brother has permanent rods and iron in

his knees, ankles, and hips. They were parked on the --

they had to go to the emergency side because they had a

flat tire and a box truck came and hit the -- when the

son was opening the trunk to get the tire and hit him

into the -- actually another van had parked in front to

help and he flew all the way and hit the van, broke his

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


212

neck and died.

MR. CHAVES: Okay.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 4: And it crushed my

brother's hip and stuff.

MR. CHAVES: All right. And let me get the

last one. Number 79.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 79: My teenage

nephew actually suffered a traumatic brain injury and is

still recuperating.

MR. CHAVES: Okay. Now, in this particular

case, both Mr. Garcia and Ms. Gamez are claiming some

mild traumatic brain injury, and that's in dispute, the

medical -- there will be medical evidence from both

sides presenting whether they do or do not have

traumatic brain injury. But the question I have for the

three of you is, can you set aside your personal

experience with traumatic brain injury that a member of

your family has and judge this case on the merits of

this case? And I'm seeing a hesitation back there.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 63: I would like to

say yes, sir, but I can't at this time.

MR. CHAVES: Okay.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 63: There's so many

mixed emotions about the things we're experiencing and

the injustice, I would say.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


213

MR. CHAVES: No. And Ms. Ortiz, I

certainly understand that. I'm not too sure I could

either, so your -- just for the record, you're a juror

who does not feel you can set aside your bias against

and judge this case fairly because of a family member

who has traumatic brain injury; is that correct?


MR. CHAVES: Okay. And you feel the same

way, Ms. Shea?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 79: Shea.

MR. CHAVES: Shea.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 79: I don't -- I

could set it aside.

MR. CHAVES: You can set it aside. Okay.


MR. CHAVES: And Mr. Hinojosa, can you set

it aside, the injury that you talked about?


MR. CHAVES: Okay. Let me make some notes

real quick.

Now, I asked the question whether anyone

didn't like truck drivers as a general question. Let me

ask a specific question. Has anyone ever been involved

in an accident with an 18-wheeler truck? Anyone? Okay.

Number 47, 61, and 73. Okay. Mr. Horowitz, how long

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


214

ago was that?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 37: I was involved

in an accident with a truck driver.

MR. CHAVES: Okay. I'm sorry?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 47: No, that was me.

MR. CHAVES: It was Mr. Dodson, I'm sorry.

I apologize.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 37: You called on

me.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 47: How long ago was

that? I'd say it was about, I would say, 12 years ago.

MR. CHAVES: Twelve years ago? Okay. And

were you injured as a result of that accident?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 47: No, I was

operating the truck.

MR. CHAVES: Oh, you were operating the

truck? Okay.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 47: I was actually

-- I was in the truck, but I was stopped.

MR. CHAVES: All right.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 47: I was hit by a

car that was coming from behind.

MR. CHAVES: Okay, sir. Number 61 and

that's Sandra Jackson.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 61: About five years

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


215

ago, I was at a stoplight and an 18-wheeler didn't have

his signal light so I assumed he was going straight. So

I turned left and he turned left and he turned into me.

MR. CHAVES: Okay.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 61: And I wasn't

hurt, just my car.

MR. CHAVES: All right, ma'am. And I think

the last person was 73.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 73: I was parked in

a parking lot and I opened my door next to a truck. He

took off and tore my door off.

MR. CHAVES: Okay.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 73: And that was it.

MR. CHAVES: Anything about that incident

that you'd bring into this lawsuit?


MR. CHAVES: Okay. We talked about damages

a little earlier, and just like Mr. Blanco indicated

that there would be a question on liability, there will

be a question on damages. And I think the Court went

into it a little bit more. As I indicated, both sides

are gonna be able to present evidence on the damage

issues and to the extent of injuries that they're

claiming. But at the end of the day, you'll be asked to

place an amount, a dollar amount in there if, in your

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


216

opinion, a dollar amount should go in there. And the

plaintiff is gonna be asking for, apparently, tens of

millions of dollars. We will be suggesting another

number. But whatever those numbers are suggested by the

lawyers, will each of you promise me that you will not

do -- just because the lawyer is saying I want, 10

million or 15 or 20 million dollars, or one million

dollars doesn't mean that you should put 10 million, 20

or 15. And just because a defense lawyer is saying, put

zero or put $5 -- or 50,000 or 500, whatever the numbers

are being suggested by the lawyers, we're there to guide

you. Hopefully, we will guide you based on what we

believe the evidence supports, but at the end of the

day, it's gonna be your decision. And my question to

you, will each of you put the figure that you feel is

appropriate after the 12 of you have conferred with each

other and come to a consensus of what that number should

be? And whether you agree with Mr. Blanco's number or

my number, or anyone else's number, you need to make it

on what you believe that number should be. Will

everyone promise me to do that?


MR. CHAVES: Okay. And it could be what

the lawyers are suggesting or it could be less, or

somewhere in between, it could -- you know, it's just

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


217

totally in your discretion.

Anyone feel that they can't do that?


MR. CHAVES: All right. I think everyone

is echoing the words, we want 12 fair and impartial

jurors. And I think that's true. But I'll tell you

what I really am looking for. I'm looking for three

things in a juror. Number one, I want a juror to be

honest. I really do. That sounds a little trite, but I

want them to be honest with themselves, honest with the

evidence, not what could have, what should have, what

maybe, but what did happen. I want them to be tough,

tough on the lawyers -- and I don't mean, mean. And I

don't mean tough on the parties. What I mean by tough,

I want them to examine the evidence, see -- see what the

evidence really is. And then I want them to call it the

way they see it, to have the guts to call it the way

they see it. Because one of the things that's gonna

happen in this case -- and I'm not suggesting that

anyone is gonna say, oh, please feel sorry for

Mr. Garcia. As a matter of fact, the Court is gonna

give you a -- probably the number one instruction that

the Court gives you is do not let bias, prejudice or

sympathy play any part in your deliberation. And let me

tell you, I -- everyone who has sustained a serious

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


218

injury, you're gonna be sympathetic. And I think you

were asked questions like, how would you feel if you

couldn't go fishing? How would you feel if you couldn't

ride a bike? And that sort of question is designed to

make you start feeling like, well, you know, gee, I know

how I'd feel, and you begin -- and of course, they'll do

that. You cannot be sympathetic. You gotta judge it on

the facts and on the evidence.

MR. BLANCO: Your Honor, I'm gonna object,

this is borderline --

THE COURT: I'm going to ask you to move on

to actual questions, okay? I am going to instruct the

jury with regards to that exact same. I think I've

already mentioned that. I told them that they were

coldhearted facts. Let's move on.

MR. CHAVES: Thank you, Your Honor. And

that's what I was saying --

THE COURT: Coldhearted fact finders, I

should say.

MR. CHAVES: Will each of you call it the

way you see it and not base your decision on sympathy?


MR. CHAVES: Okay. Your Honor, I think I

-- how much time have I used up?

THE COURT: You have used up an hour and

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


219

ten minutes. All right. I have a question from No. 20.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 20: Yes, you

mentioned Jesse Ybarra earlier. I have a brother named

Jesse Ybarra. I don't know if it's the same one.

MR. CHAVES: You don't know if it's the

same one?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 20: No, I don't know

if it's the same one.

MR. CHAVES: Is Mr. Ybarra 66 years old?

MR. EDWARDS: Yeah, I think so. And you're

talking about Jesse Ybarra?


MR. EDWARDS: That rides motorcycles?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 20: I don't know. I

don't know.

MR. CHAVES: Okay. I don't think it's the

same one.

MR. EDWARDS: I think he's younger than

that.


MR. CHAVES: But I thank you for bringing

that up.

I gave you back 50 minutes. Is that what

you --

THE COURT: Well, we still have one more.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


220

MR. CHAVES: Oh, okay.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. CHAVES: In that case, I pass the

witness -- I mean, I pass the jury.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Warren.

MR. WARREN: My name's Larry Warren. It's

been so long since we started I almost forgot who I was.

Let's start off with a little bit of democracy here.

And I want to tell you, I'm going to give you guys a

vote. You got two choices here. First of all, I've got

a six page, single spaced outline on my voir dire of all

the topics and questions that I'd love to cover with you

guys. But there's page 6. We've been going for --

well, we've going since 10:00 this morning. That's

choice one that you have.

Choice two is what I have narrowed it down

to. So, I'm hearing a few clapping kind of for choice

two. But let's see, raise your hand if you want me to

go through choice A, choice number one? We have one.

One glutton for punishment, maybe two. Raise your hand

if you want me to just go through choice two?

(A show of hands.)

MR. WARREN: All right. That's what we're

gonna do. See how easy this is?

All right. Judge Watts mentioned about the

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


221

jury process and she went through the history of it a

little bit. And actually, the history does go back to

biblical times. And in Proverbs 18:17 it states: He

who pleads his case first seems right until his

neighbors come and examine him.

Folks, you are the neighbors. The 12 or 14

of you who will get to sit in that box are the neighbors

who have come to judge the conduct of each of the

parties in this case. Are each of you willing to be

fair and impartial in the aspect of judging your

neighbors in this process? Can each of you feel

comfortable being in the position of judging the conduct

of your neighbors? Is there anyone who is completely

uncomfortable with the idea of judging your neighbor?

Raise your hand if you're uncomfortable about it.

All right. I see one hand and that is

Juror No. 30?


MR. WARREN: 21. All right.

Can you tell me just briefly what is the

uncomforted? Is it a religious sense or what is the

uncomfort that you would have in it?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 21: Yes, some is

religious and I just don't want to be on their spot. I

just don't want to be judged myself.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


222

MR. WARREN: When you say "in their spot"

are you talking about any of the parties?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 21: Any of the

parties.

MR. WARREN: Any of the parties. You just

don't want to be judged yourself. All right. Thank

you, sir. 54, Yes, sir?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 54: I brought it up

earlier. In my experience or my definition of a peer,

these people aren't my peers. They're not my neighbors.

I know my neighbors. But I don't know them. But if

they're being -- in the jury system, they were called "a

jury of your peers." A peer is someone who knows of

your character. You know, I don't know who these people

are so I wouldn't be a fair peer.

MR. WARREN: And your problem or your

concern with it is that you don't know them, therefore,

you don't feel like you're one of the peers?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 54: Right. I base

my opinion on what the law says what a peer is. That's

the law's definition of a peer.

MR. WARREN: All right. Thank you, sir.

Anyone else? 16, yes, sir. Mr. Miller.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 16: In previous

questions by Mr. Edwards, we were discussing if we had a

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


223

bias against anything. So is your question asking do we

have a bias, can we sit and simply put our bias aside?

MR. WARREN: Not exactly.


MR. WARREN: And I know that several of you

have discussed various beliefs or positions that you've

had and I don't want to rehash all of that. It's just

simply the process of being asked to come in and sit in

judgment of conduct. Is there anyone who has a problem

simply with that process in and of itself? Number 7,

yes, ma'am.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 7: Yeah, I don't

feel comfortable doing that here.

MR. WARREN: You don't feel comfortable?


MR. WARREN: Okay. Number 7 and anyone

else?


question.

MR. WARREN: Number 67.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 67: Yeah. She's

suing Jennings, Dillon and Garcia?

MR. WARREN: Yes.


MR. WARREN: That's just a question, right?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


224

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 67: Yeah, that just

seems -- whatever.

MR. WARREN: I'm sure if you're on the jury

you'll get to hear a whole lot more about it. But as

far as sitting on a jury and considering judgment in the

case, do you have any problem with that?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 67: I don't know.

MR. WARREN: You don't know?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 67: I'm sorry, it's

like the spotlight. I'm sorry. I don't know yet.

MR. WARREN: Okay. I understand. You

would be willing to wait and hear all the evidence

before making your mind up on any aspect in this case?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 67: Possibly.

MR. WARREN: Possibly. Okay.

MR. BLANCO: Mr. Warren.

MR. WARREN: Yes. Yes, No. 3.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 3: I'm not

comfortable judging others and I'm very more sympathetic

that I might be bias or something like that.

MR. WARREN: You're -- you feel sympathetic

and biased in what respect?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 3: I'm more

sympathetic when I see -- I mean, if I see the evidence

or whatever. I really don't -- I'm not comfortable.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


225

MR. WARREN: Is your concern that you would

be more sympathetic when you see that somebody --

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 3: Exactly.

MR. WARREN: -- who's had a true and

genuine injury?


MR. WARREN: All right. Because there are

some true and genuine injuries here. We do have a below

the knee amputation for Mr. Garcia's left leg. We do

have the amputation of his finger. We do have a

concussion, at least, for Ms. Gamez. And so there are

gonna be real injuries that are discussed. Does your

feeling, Sister, in regard to the injuries, cause you to

feel that -- and the sympathy that you would have --


MR. WARREN: -- cause you to feel -- cause

you to feel that you couldn't be fair and impartial --


MR. WARREN: -- to my client, Dillon

Transport and to Mr. Jennings?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 3: I might be. I

might be.

MR. WARREN: You would be leaning towards

the plaintiffs?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 3: Towards the --

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


226

exactly.

MR. WARREN: All right. And is that

something that you don't feel you could set aside and

just judge the conduct of the parties without

considering that sympathy?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 3: I don't know. I

don't think I can.

MR. WARREN: You would have a hard time

doing that?


MR. WARREN: Okay. And let's see, anyone

else feel the same way that the Sister feels on

sympathy, that you couldn't take -- you could not follow

the Judge's instruction about bias or prejudice and

sympathy? And I believe the instruction will read very

simple. You are not to allow bias, prejudice, or

sympathy to play any role in your decision in your

deliberation. So anyone other than the Sister who could

not set aside what are natural feelings of sympathy, for

someone who's been injured, and make your decision

solely upon the evidence in the case and not let that

sympathy burden you or cause you trouble? Anyone other

than the Sister, just raise your hand, and it's okay.


MR. WARREN: I see no other hands. Thank

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


227

you, Sister.

One of the allegations in this case --

generally, it's a negligence case. Who failed to use

ordinary care. It's an accident, but the allegation is

that somebody acted negligently on this occasion. And

the question is, you know, who failed to use ordinary

care on the occasion of this accident? An allegation

against my client, Dillon Transport, is that they

negligently trained or negligently supervised our

employee, our driver, Kenneth Jennings. So I have a

quick question or two. How many of you have been

involved in a role of training people?

(A show of hands.)

MR. WARREN: Okay. A lot of hands raised.

Okay. And I believe there was one juror in the back

that was a teacher and right here, Mr. Amador, is that

right?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 32: That's part of

the job.

MR. WARREN: Part of the job. Okay. All

right. Now, I saw a lot of hands and I'm not gonna go

through all the numbers there, but I want to ask you

this question: Does anyone on the panel feel that if

you just do enough training, if you just do enough

supervision, that you can eliminate all accidents? I

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


228

hear some chuckling, but there are people that believe

that. I just need to see is there are anyone that feels

that if you just do enough training, one more hour of

training, one more course work, one extra minute of

supervision, we could avoid all accidents? Raise your

hand if you feel that way.


MR. WARREN: All right. Now, in addition

to the claim of negligent training, negligent super --

let me back up, first of all. We will tell you, through

the course of the trial, that Kenneth Jennings was our

driver. He was in the course and scope of his

employment for us, we stand firmly behind him, and we

are completely in support of Kenneth Jennings. He is

our -- he is our driver at the time of this accident,

and we support him fully. There are independent

allegations against us, as I mentioned, this negligent

supervision, negligent training. But there's also a

claim that we, as a company, acted grossly negligent,

that we acted with conscious indifference in our

training and our supervision, that we acted with

reckless disregard about the safety and welfare of our

training and other people and supervision. So, you

heard earlier, when Mr. Chaves was talking about the

burden of proof and that the plaintiffs have the burden

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


229

of proving their case. And they have -- they have the

burden of proving that Mr. Jennings was negligent and

they have to prove that by what's called the

preponderance of the evidence, the greater weight of the

believable evidence. They also have to prove that my

client was negligent in its supervision, negligent in

his training, and they have to prove that by the

preponderance of the evidence, that greater weight of

evidence. And on the gross negligence claim, they have

to prove that my client was grossly negligence --

negligent by what's called the standard, clear and

convincing evidence.

Is there anyone on this panel that feels

that it is unfair that the plaintiffs have that burden

of proving each one of the elements or the claims that

they've raised? Anyone have a problem with making the

plaintiffs carry forth that burden, raise your hand?


MR. WARREN: All right. I see no hands.

I'm going to check my notes. I think I'm at the very

bottom of it. Ah, one last question.

If you are selected and placed on this

jury, will you be fair and impartial towards all the

parties in this case? And I know that some have raised

their questions earlier in response to specific

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


230

questions. This question is designed for anyone who did

not raise your hand earlier. Is there anyone else on

the panel who says they could not be fair and impartial

if they were impaneled, for whatever reason, just raise

your hand? All right. We've already heard from 4 and

12, and 5 and 16. I'm talking about others who hadn't

raised their hand before this moment.


MR. WARREN: All right. With that, I'm

gonna sit down, and thank you very much for your time.


question.

THE COURT: All right. Ladies and

gentlemen --

MR. WARREN: 15 had a question. Yes, sir.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 15: Is your client

still employed with y'all?

MR. WARREN: He, of his own accord, has

gone to another company.

MR. EDWARDS: And Judge -- can we have a

quick side-bar?

THE COURT: Sure. Hold on just a moment.

(Discussion at the bench, off the record.)

MR. WARREN: All right. I violated my

promise that I was done.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


231

Ms. Torres, you raised your hand at the

very end. I think you were one that had not responded

earlier about, that you don't think you could be fair

and impartial. Can you tell us what it is that has you

of that belief at this stage?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 5: I just have a

problem with Mr. Edwards' client suing everybody. I

just don't --

MR. WARREN: Okay. Is it a situation where

you could set aside your personal feelings about that

and listen purely to the evidence that is introduced to

you during the course of the trial, both the written

evidence and the verbal testimony, follow the Court's

instructions, and render a judgment based or a verdict

based solely upon the evidence and the written

instructions from the Court? Do you feel like you could

do that?


MR. WARREN: And in the process, exercise

fair and impartial judgment based on the evidence and

the instructions of the Court?


MR. WARREN: Thank you, Ms. Torres.


gentlemen, now, let me tell you what's going to happen.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


232

You're gonna get a break and it's gonna be longer than

you want. But at this point, we have certain things we

have to do. And outside your presence, we will do what

we call, challenges for cause. And that means that each

of the attorneys or each of the sides get to, in effect,

bring to my attention what they perceive to be bias or

prejudice, or the fact that somebody is not suitable to

sit in this case. I make decisions at that point. I

either sustain or I deny that objection. Once I have

dealt with all the challenges for cause, all the

attorneys go into their respective corners and then they

have strikes, peremptory strikes. And as Mr. Chaves

says, they don't have to give a reason. I'm not

involved in that at all, they can strike anybody for

whatever reason they have.

Once I have that, my clerk comes down here

and then we, in effect, find the first name that doesn't

have an X through them and that's Juror No. 1. It's

gonna take us, I want to say 20 minutes, but I'm a

perpetual optimist, probably closer to 30. So you are

excused at this time. Remember the instructions. And

when you come back, we'll let you know when you can come

into the courtroom. We'll let you in as soon as

possible so you can be seated and then those cards need

to go to Mr. Gallegos, okay?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


233

All right. At this time, you're excused

from the courtroom.

(Jury panel exits courtroom.)

THE COURT: All right. Let's begin.

Challenges for cause. Now please be reminded we already

have seven agreed upon challenges for cause. Now, the

way that I like to do it -- and it works out just fine

-- is I will say, I'll entertain any challenges for

cause from 1 through 10. And I don't care who speaks up

first, because I have been taking copious notes and have

a pretty good idea who is going to be challenged and

what will be granted and maybe not. 1 through 10.

MR. CHAVES: Well, I've got --

MR. EDWARDS: Do you want to go ahead?

MR. CHAVES: -- No. 3, said she could not

set aside sympathy. And she would --

THE COURT: Okay. Number 3.

MR. EDWARDS: I agree.

MR. CHAVES: Do you agree?

MR. EDWARDS: Yes.

THE COURT: Somebody should have explained

to her the difference between sympathy and empathy.

MR. CHAVES: And then No. 6, Ms. Gamez is

her aunt.

MR. EDWARDS: Oh, yeah, Yeah.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


234

THE COURT: Yes. 3 is granted. 6 is

granted as well.

MR. EDWARDS: Anything else?

MR. CHAVES: I think that's it on 1 through

10.

THE COURT: Challenges for cause?

MR. EDWARDS: I've got No. 4.

THE COURT: Granted.

MR. WARREN: Didn't even allow me to argue.

MR. CHAVES: That was quick, Judge. That

was quick.

THE COURT: I have him on a number of

occasions.

MR. EDWARDS: I've got No. 5. I know that

Mr. Warren asked a very nice question at the end of

which she said, yes. But she clearly had a problem when

she held up her card at the very end and said, "I have a

problem with Mr. Edwards' client coming in here and

suing everybody."

MR. WARREN: She did state, however, that

she could set it aside, she could be fair and impartial.

THE COURT: You're gonna have to use one of

your strikes on No. 5. Saved by the last line.

MR. BLANCO: Well, Your Honor, even though

the words were spoken, her facial expressions, her --

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


235

her demeanor.

THE COURT: She had an ample opportunity

during the entire voir dire to speak up. I think she

was exhausted, I think she wants out of here. Okay.

But she had ample opportunity to express it because that

question about being able to be fair has been asked on a

number of occasions. So I am saying, I think if she was

rehabilitated, she did not express an ingrained bias or

prejudice such as some of the others have.

MR. EDWARDS: I've also got No. 9.

THE COURT: That's granted as well.

All right. 11 through 20.

MR. EDWARDS: I've got 12, she said --

THE COURT: Granted.

MR. CHAVES: Okay.

MR. EDWARDS: I've got 16.

THE COURT: I would say that that was

pretty apparent. Granted.

MR. EDWARDS: That's it on that row.

THE COURT: Anything from the defense side?

MR. WARREN: I don't have any in the --

THE COURT: That was our best row.

21 through 30, please.

MR. EDWARDS: I've got 21.

MR. CHAVES: I just don't remember what the

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


236

basis of that challenge was.

THE COURT: He was the young man sitting

over on the second row and he had two bases that he --

he said he -- I can't -- well, I'd have to look at my

notes, but he came up twice.

MR. EDWARDS: Yeah, early on he said he

couldn't be fair.

THE COURT: Yeah, he said he had no

personal experiences, but he had -- he had problems with

personal injury lawsuits.

MR. WARREN: I think that was --

THE COURT: And remember he's the one that

had the friend that I think called one of the known

attorneys in town.

MR. WARREN: Right. Who said he didn't get

help because it wasn't a big dollar case.

THE COURT: And then he also came up again

-- anyway, I've granted that challenge unless you would

like to argue against that. He -- the only time he ever

came up he said he had medical knowledge.

MR. CHAVES: So 21 is granted?

THE COURT: It is.

MR. CHAVES: Okay.

THE COURT: Based on bias. Stated bias, I

might add.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


237

All right. Any others?

MR. CHAVES: No, Your Honor.

MR. EDWARDS: Nothing on that row.

THE COURT: I agree.

31 through 40.

MR. CHAVES: Challenge 33.

MR. EDWARDS: I don't have any note on

that.

THE COURT: Knows Theresa Gamez.

MR. CHAVES: She's best friends. She

cannot --

THE COURT: Yeah, I will grant that as bias

and prejudice.

MR. EDWARDS: Oh, was that 33?

THE COURT: Yes, 33.

MR. CHAVES: That's correct.

MR. EDWARDS: Okay. I must have had that

somewhere else. Anything else from you, Doug?

MR. CHAVES: Nothing else.

THE COURT: Her daughter was best friends

with Ms. Gamez or she is best friends with Ms. Gamez's

daughter.

MR. EDWARDS: If everybody else has got it,

I'm not gonna argue about it.

THE COURT: Okay.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


238

MR. EDWARDS: I think I put it in the wrong

spot.

THE COURT: Any others?

MR. EDWARDS: I've got 32. He said the

majority of the motorcycle riders here in Corpus are

dangerous.

MR. WARREN: I thought you stipulated to

that.

MR. CHAVES: But he also said he would

listen to the evidence on -- in this case and judge the

evidence on this case.

MR. EDWARDS: He also said that I don't

know that I won't teach on the medical.

THE COURT: Oh, that was the one I had the

most concern about.

MR. EDWARDS: Yeah.

THE COURT: He pretty well said he was

gonna serve as an expert witness.

MR. EDWARDS: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. I'm gonna grant 32.

Even after I explained the difference between, and the

line, he was pretty apparent he didn't think he could do

it.

MR. EDWARDS: I've got 34, he's -- this

person said that even though there's no allegations

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


239

against Theresa, he's still gonna go back in the jury

deliberation and say that she -- she can be responsible

for getting on the motorcycle, and he will reduce the

damages by percentages.

THE COURT: Granted.

MR. EDWARDS: Number 37, Mr. Horowitz.

THE COURT: Granted.

MR. WARREN: All right. Could you explain

the reasoning, Judge?

MR. EDWARDS: You can go ask my father

apparently. And I'm -- that does me on that row.

THE COURT: Anything further on that?

MR. WARREN: Not on the 30's, I don't

believe.

THE COURT: All right. I think -- I have a

funny feeling we're almost there. Let's go 41 through

50 and I think that we should have our jury by then.

MR. EDWARDS: I've got 41. She said that

-- Ms. Canales said that her feelings against personal

injury lawsuits might play a part in her --

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. EDWARDS: -- considerations.

THE COURT: Granted.

MR. EDWARDS: 42, he was talking about his

cousin is a police officer, but then he just came out

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


240

and said, I've got a bias for the Defendant.

THE COURT: Yeah, he sure did, didn't he?

Clear. 42 is granted.

MR. EDWARDS: And I've got 47, Mr. Dodson.

Oh, he's the one with the family farm truck companies.

THE COURT: Yes. And he had a stated bias.

MR. EDWARDS: Yeah.

THE COURT: Granted.

MR. EDWARDS: And 48, a couple of things on

her, one was, she indicated that she had feelings

against personal injury lawsuits that would affect her.

And I think she was one that testified or that said --

THE COURT: No pain and suffering --

MR. EDWARDS: Yes.

THE COURT: -- no mental anguish, even if

instructed.

MR. EDWARDS: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. I'm sorry, that was

40 --

MR. EDWARDS: 48.

THE COURT: 48.

MR. CHAVES: And we did want 46 struck,

Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Let me look at that

one. On what basis?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


241

MR. CHAVES: She was the daughter's best

friend.

THE COURT: Absolutely.

MR. EDWARDS: Yeah, that's a good one.

THE COURT: Granted.

MR. EDWARDS: Oh, and I just found a note

--

THE COURT: Isn't that unusual to have a

panel that has best friends? All right.

MR. WARREN: I had a cousin on the last

panel who said he'd be fair and impartial all the way.

THE COURT: All right. Let me go through

them.

MR. SMITH: Can we back up a little bit,

please?

THE COURT: Uh-huh.

MR. SMITH: On 38, I've got a note here

that lawsuits are just people out to make money and most

tellingly, he agrees with 37, who we've all been

listening to all day.

THE COURT: Oh, that's right.

MR. SMITH: And he says, not fair, cannot

put aside the -- his feelings, and he was in a wreck. I

think 38 should go out for cause and I so move the

Court.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


242

THE COURT: Granted. All right. Let me

count it up. We've got our jury. Without 58 and 64.


THE COURT: Our strike line initially --

from what I can see, is going to be -- let's count it up

one more time. Let me go through the numbers with you

to make sure you have them.

MR. CHAVES: Okay. Yes, ma'am.

THE COURT: All right. I'm including the

ones we previously did for cause and the ones that I

have granted right now.

MR. EDWARDS: Will you allow me -- let me

grab a highlighter real quick.

THE COURT: You bet.

MR. WARREN: You're gonna tell us who's

been struck or who's left? Struck?

THE COURT: Struck.

MR. WARREN: All right.

THE COURT: 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 12, 16, 25, 26.

MR. CHAVES: 21.

MR. WARREN: 21.

THE COURT: I'm sorry. Yes, I granted 21.

All right. Let me back up. 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 12, 16, 21,

25, 26, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41, 42, 46, 47,

48. So far.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


243

MR. CHAVES: And what does that leave us?

THE COURT: 23 challenges for cause. You

all have two strikes -- I mean, excuse me --

MR. WARREN: Better use them carefully.

THE COURT: And --

MR. WARREN: Through Juror 49 then.

THE COURT: It's through Juror --

MR. CHAVES: We're gonna pick 12 jurors.

THE COURT: -- wait a minute, 23 strikes.


THE COURT: There are 23 strikes granted.

MR. CHAVES: Yes.

MR. EDWARDS: Through 40 --

THE COURT: 48. Okay. And then we need --

you're gonna take 12 more, so that's 35. And I need 12

on the jury. So that's 47. So our strike line is 40,

including 48.

MR. WARREN: I'd agree. I thought you were

gonna have two alternates is what I --

THE COURT: I am.

MR. WARREN: Okay.

THE COURT: But you have to make your

strikes --

MR. WARREN: I'm with you.

THE COURT: -- In that -- through line 48,

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


244

including 48.

MR. WARREN: Okay.

THE COURT: And after that, then you will

each side have one additional strike for us to get two

alternates. So let me see if we can do that. I think

we need to do a few more -- you get two strikes, so the

jurors are gonna be through 50 -- alternates are 49

through 52. Is there any challenges for cause from 49

to 52?

MR. EDWARDS: I've got one for 51.

MR. CHAVES: I think the answer is no to 49

and 50.

MR. EDWARDS: 49 and 50, I'm okay.

THE COURT: That's correct. I do not have

that. Would you refresh my memory on 51?

MR. EDWARDS: On 51, if --

THE COURT: I have 52.

MR. EDWARDS: 51 said that --

THE COURT: I have 53.

MR. EDWARDS: -- he would reduce damages by

the percentage.

THE COURT: Oh, that's right.

MR. EDWARDS: And he also said -- he talked

-- I think it was -- that's my only legible note.

MR. BLANCO: He would --

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


245

MR. EDWARDS: And I think he may have said

something about motorcycles, but I don't have a legible

note on it.

MR. WARREN: He said he was a bicyclist,

but in regard to that, he would be fair.

MR. EDWARDS: But he did say that he would

reduce damages by a percentage.

THE COURT: I'm not seeing that. I'm not

saying it didn't happen.

MR. WARREN: I did not have that he would

reduce damages.

THE COURT: I don't have his number down on

anything.

MS. BELTRAN: I have 51.

THE COURT: You have 51? And again, please

state it on the record what the challenge for cause is.

MR. EDWARDS: Come now, plaintiffs, and

challenge for cause, Juror No. 51, as he said that he

would reduce the damages by the percentage of

responsibility even -- even if the Court were to

instruct not to do that.

MR. SMITH: Join.

MR. WARREN: And Your Honor, my notes don't

indicate that. I had that he would -- he was a

bicyclist, when he was being questioned about

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


246

motorcyclists, but that he would be fair. I don't --

THE COURT: There were several who after I

made the explanation, there were three of them that

continued to say that they would reduce the damages

regardless of the instruction.

MR. BLANCO: Number 16.

THE COURT: One was 16.

MR. BLANCO: Number 4 was the other and

No. 51 was the other one.

THE COURT: Okay. Then I'm going to grant

51. There were three of them. It was 4 and 16 for

sure. Mr. Ford is -- off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

MR. EDWARDS: So do we need to go --

THE COURT: Yes, we do. With that strike,

we need to look at now -- is there any challenge on 52?

No. 53?

MR. EDWARDS: 53 I think is already gone.

MR. WARREN: He's already gone.

MS. BELTRAN: Yeah, we already agreed.

THE COURT: And 54?

MR. CHAVES: We agreed to 53?

MR. WARREN: He was already excused by

agreement earlier. I think he -- I can't remember why,

but he was.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


247

THE COURT: He was the one, the last one

that we interviewed.

MR. WARREN: Oh, he had the cruise.

THE COURT: He had the cruise, the paid

cruise. And I forgot to write that down. Let me count

again. 23 challenges for cause, 12 strikes is 35, plus

the jury. Now I'm getting to 47. 23 challenges for

cause, 12 strikes is 35, plus 12 on the jury is 47 is

the strike line. I mean, make --

MR. EDWARDS: That doesn't --

THE COURT: It's not -- huh?

MS. BELTRAN: It's 24 now, Judge. It was

23 before.

THE COURT: I didn't count that. 53 is

beyond.

MR. CHAVES: Don't if we go to 45 that

takes care of the 12?

THE COURT: Yeah. Let's make sure. If the

-- despite the fact that the strike line is 47 or 48,

it's -- they're still struck, 47 and 48 are still

struck.

MR. CHAVES: Sure.

THE COURT: So literally -- let's make

sure.

MR. CHAVES: I count 24 jurors up through

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


248

45.

THE COURT: There's 25 jurors and the

strike line is 45.

MR. EDWARDS: Here's what happens, yes. At

45, it does. For the alternates, we need four more?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. EDWARDS: Right? And that would be 49,

50.

THE COURT: 52.

MR. EDWARDS: 52.

MR. CHAVES: And we challenged 54.

THE COURT: And 54 is granted.

MR. EDWARDS: I believe it's No. 55.

THE COURT: Okay. Does everybody

understand where the strike lines are?

MR. EDWARDS: Okay. And in the first six,

if I hear what you're saying, the first six are to be

done 45 and earlier?

THE COURT: That's correct. And -- well --

MR. CHAVES: That's true.

THE COURT: That's true. And then you each

have an additional strike from Juror 49 through 55,

because you need to have four to leave two.

MR. CHAVES: Correct.

THE COURT: One strike each side, four left

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


249

-- I mean, two left.

MR. CHAVES: All right. Got it.

THE COURT: Everybody got it? Strike line

is 44.

MR. EDWARDS: 44?

THE COURT: 44 not 45.

MR. EDWARDS: Really?

THE COURT: Yep. Add it all up. I want to

make sure.

MR. EDWARDS: Can we --

THE COURT: 44 is the strike including 44.

So that means that your alternates are gonna be either

45 -- you're gonna strike 1, 45, 49, 50 and 52.

MR. EDWARDS: All right. Can I just real

quick -- can we just real quick go through the ones that

are still there?

THE COURT: Okay. The ones that are still

there. 1, 2, 5, 7, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20,

22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 39, 43 and 44. That's

24 possibilities for our jury.

MR. EDWARDS: Okay.

THE COURT: Your strikes for your

alternates have to be either 45, 49, 50, and 52.

MR. CHAVES: That's fine, Judge.

THE COURT: Okay.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


250

MR. CHAVES: May we excused to do our

strikes?

THE COURT: You may.

(Attorneys prepare strikes.)


gentlemen of the jury, let me explain what has been

going on. We conducted our hearing with regards to

challenges for cause. Just so you're aware, challenges

for cause, I granted 23 challenges for cause. Each side

then, in effect, went into their respective rooms and

they made their strikes.

Let me introduce you right now to Subronze

Lucas. He is my clerk of the -- he's the clerk of the

117th. He has three lists in front of him. And that --

those lists include my list, which has all the strikes

for cause. It includes the defense list. And it

includes the plaintiff's list. And like in the old way,

he lines up all three lists at the same distance and the

first juror that's gonna serve in this jury is the one

that has not one strike through the names. So he lines

them up and the first name that has no strike is Juror

No. 1. Continued down, Juror No. 2. We have 12. And

then we went on to do strikes for alternates. Each side

is granted one additional strike for alternates. And so

that is what Mr. Lucas is working on right now is the

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


251

final jury list.

I will -- once I receive it from Mr. Lucas,

I will call out the names of the 12 that will serve as

the jurors in this case and as the two alternates. I'm

asking all of you to stay seated until everyone has

filled these chairs so that I know that no mistake has

been made and we have all of our folks here.

I want to thank you, number one, for

spending the day for us. It's a long day. And it is a

long day for you and I can assure you it's a long day

for everyone in the room. But it is the process by

which we come to a jury based, as far as the -- the

efforts of all of us of that we regard as fair and

impartial and ready to serve at this time.

The County is going to send a very small

token of their appreciation for the days that you spent

with us. So you will know, the first day that you come

to the courthouse is called a $10 day and that is paid

by the County. And then, the next time you show up

which is today, that becomes a $40 day, and every day

that the 12, plus the alternates will serve, will be an

additional $40. It in no way is exchange for the time

and the effort that you have put in.

But I do want to tell you a little bit of

history while he's finishing that up. It used to be

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


252

that the County simply did -- paid what they were gonna

pay. Bexar County is very tight. They only pay $6 a

day. Okay. We're big. We pay $10. And it became

obvious to the Texas legislator -- legislators, that

jurors, especially in the big metropolitan areas where

they had to pay for parking in San Antonio and Austin,

Houston and Dallas, that they were paying out more for

parking than they literally were getting in exchange for

their jury pay. Because around those areas, as you

know, you're paying at least $10 to $15 a day just to

park your car. So the legislators got involved and they

decided that they would subsidize the counties to

increase the jury pay. And the county pays the first

amount, which they ordinarily do, then the legislature

steps in and pays the difference. So the State pays 30

of the second day and the County pays 10. Well, like

everything else, they give and they take away. So

originally, it was a $40 day. They were subsidizing it

at $30. And then they decided their budget was too

tight, so it went back down to a $28 day. And then it

was put into the law to gradually increase it back up to

what we call the $40 day. I always say, if you're only

here on Monday, don't take anybody with you, because you

can't -- there's not enough to spend it on two people.

But you're gonna have a little bonus, but like

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


253

everything else, you're gonna get an opportunity to send

it back. We have certain very definite needs in our

community and these are especially the CASA volunteers

that work with our children, and child development, et

cetera, et cetera. And so if you -- you can spend it or

you can send it back. But I'm gonna ask everybody to

stay in the courtroom until we have our jury in the box.

Those of you who are selected, there is a

adjournment in your future as well and that will be

after I have sworn you in and I have given you some

very, very basic instructions for tomorrow.

Mr. Gallegos has the excuses that you -- if

you want to present those to your employers. It's just

give him an opportunity to be outside. Don't run him

down so that he can get those excuses to you while you,

in effect, go to the elevators.

All right. Mr. Lucas, where are we? On

the alternates I can see.

(Pause in proceedings.)

THE COURT: All right. As your name is

called, if you will come forward, and Mr. Gallegos will

direct you to the seat that you will be occupying.

Sheila Jenkins, please. Guadalupe Vasquez,

Vivian Brown, Carolyn Molina, Estanislao Ybarra,

Raul Palacios, Jr., Ismael Sanchez, Lori Edwards,

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


254

Christine Sherry, David Livas, Sr., Diane Bailey,

Gonzalo Reyes. Alternate No. 1 is Amanda Rodriguez, and

Alternate No. 2 is Richard Self. And my chairs are

occupied.

So Mr. Gallegos will be meeting you out in

the hallway. On behalf of everyone here, that is the

lawyers and the parties, we thank you for answering your

summons and sharing your day with us today. Thank you.

(Jury panel exits courtroom.)


gentlemen of the jury, cause I know you're anxious to

also go home, while they are exiting, the rest are

exiting, I would like you to raise your right hand at

this time.

(Oath administered.)

THE COURT: You have now become official

members in the administration of justice. Can you hear

me without this? Okay.

All right. We're going to do very little,

but I want to tell you about the importance of that

card. Okay. That card, the ID, identification card, is

to be worn at all times that you are here at the

courthouse. So as soon as you walk in the door, please

use that card. That card serves three functions:

Number one, it gets you to the front of the security

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


255

line in the morning. And I will tell you that is

extremely important, especially on Mondays and Tuesdays,

and on Fridays because that's when we have all the

arraignments on -- for misdemeanors on the seventh

floor. So, the officers down there know that you are

expected to be at a particular time in the courtroom.

And so, please advance to the front and you will be

allowed to, in effect, come up ahead of the others.

Don't feel like you're doing anything bad and cutting in

line.

Number two function: The instruction you

heard was do not talk to anyone about this case

whomsoever. There is a corollary to that and that is,

do not stay in the presence of anyone who may be

discussing the case. There are a lot of people involved

in this case. There are a lot of witnesses that are

gonna come up on elevators and be sitting in the

courtroom -- I mean, outside the courtroom. The most

unproductive time in America is the first 10 to 15, 20

minutes of every workday. It's when everybody gets to

the office, they put their purses up, they flip on the

computer, they take their jackets off, they go get their

first cup of coffee, they shoot the breeze and then we

start to work. Same thing happens at the courthouse.

But our offices at the courthouse are these hallways,

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


256

the elevators, and outside the courtrooms. That's where

we conduct the same conversations every day. Well, what

do you have going, sir? What kind of case are you

trying, Judge Watts, okay? So that card is a signal to

us not to have those conversations. So when you get

into the elevator, we see you in the hallway. We are

not going to engage in those same conversations. You

will see other people at the courthouse with different

colored tags, they're involved in different jury trials

in different courtrooms. But it is very important, one

of the reasons that you wear that. The third important

thing about that ID card is on the flip side of that

card is Mr. Gallegos's information. I know disasters

strike, okay? Things can happen on the way to the

courthouse. I understand that. But you are the folks

that have to finish this case. All right? If you're

going to be late for any reason, please call

Mr. Gallegos. On jury days, he is here early, because

he is getting everything ready. He's opening things up.

And of course, we have a docket even before you walk in

at -- which is gonna be 9:00 tomorrow. If disaster

strikes, please call Mr. Gallegos about your intended

tardiness. I will tell you, I get very antsy about when

jurors are late and they -- we don't know where they are

and it is so important that I will send the constables

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


257

out to go find you because we don't know where you are.

And so please make sure that you call.

Now, from this time forward, you will no

longer enter the jury room like through those double

doors or this door right here. Over here is the jury

room and you will enter and exit through that jury room.

Mr. Gallegos will be waiting for you on the fourth --

fifth floor at the end of the hallway to allow you to

come into the jury room. You will come through the

hallway and you will then be able to sit in the jury

room.

Two things. I do allow bottled water. I

do not allow any coffee. I don't allow any soda cans.

If you want -- if you are -- I drink water all day long,

so if you want to have water while the case is going on,

you may bring in bottled water.

I have no idea how cold this courtroom is

going to be tomorrow, or whether it is gonna be hot.

While we were in the morning, everybody said it was a

rather chilly -- well, they were saying it was cold in

here. I didn't feel that, but please, you can always

take a jacket off. But if you come without a jacket

then you may get cold in the courtroom. Those are just

some basic things.

The instructions, every day I'm going to

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


258

tell you, please be reminded of the instructions. There

isn't gonna be any media necessarily covering this case,

but the instruction is, don't talk about it with anyone.

We're trying to help you with those outside influences

that might come your way, all right?

We will start at 9:00 in the morning.

Every morning I have an 8:30 docket. So there are cases

that will be here. Sometimes you have to wait because

we might have inmates and we can't bring you in because

they're gonna be sitting in your chairs. But I -- we --

other cases don't stop just because we're involved here.

But I try to time it out because I do not like my jury

waiting. So if you are waiting, it's because we're

waiting for transport to come get the inmates that may

be sitting in your chairs, if it is a criminal docket.

Do any of you have any questions? Okay.

Yes, ma'am.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 3: So safely, we

could say this is gonna take two weeks because I gotta

get a substitute?

THE COURT: I'd say, yes, it is going to

take two weeks. These attorneys, they have been --

they're so well prepared. They're going to cut it down

as much as they can. But it is an extremely important

case. There's a lot of evidence that's gonna be

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


259

presented. We're gonna work hard so that we can

hopefully, maybe we can cut it down, but my -- hopefully

-- my promise to you is December 18th. Okay? So please

make arrangements. If we get close and I'm thinking

it's not gonna get over by then, then we're gonna start

working a little later, okay? So that we can get done.

I understand the time of the year is, for

those of us that have procrastinated, it gets a little

tense with regard to it. But that's what the Internet

is all about at nighttime.

All right. Any other questions?

UNIDENTIFIED JUROR: What time at the end

of the day?

THE COURT: 9:00 in the morning.

UNIDENTIFIED JUROR: At the end of the day,

approximately?

THE COURT: You know, I always like to work

to 5:00 or 5:30. But if I have a witness on and we are

gonna break with that witness, then I will work until

the natural break in the testimony, instead of having to

bring back a witness that could get, you know, come and

go home, is what I'm saying to you. All right?

Every now and then it might be earlier than

5:00, but with our time frame and our time pressure,

pretty much it's gonna be 5:30, okay? Yes, ma'am?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


260

UNIDENTIFIED JUROR: Are we allowed to

bring our cell phones and have them in the jury room?

THE COURT: If they don't confiscate them

downstairs, you are allowed to bring your cell phones.

I just say, no social networking with regards to this

case at all. Not, we're gonna have a break in 20

minutes, or the Judge only gave us 15 and I thought we

were gonna have 30. None of that. Not one word about

this case at all.

And I'll tell you how important that is.

There was a federal case. They were in trial for two

and a half weeks, something like ours. They were in and

had finished deliberations and someone went on there and

texted a friend to say, watch the news, big verdict

coming down. And the federal judge mistrialed that

case. We don't want to have to do that. So please

follow the instructions.

Very good. All right. Mr. Gallegos, you

want to show them how they're gonna leave and come in?

THE BAILIFF: All rise for the jury.

THE COURT: We've got some housekeeping to

do.

(Jury exits courtroom.)

(Voir dire proceedings concluded.)

(No further discussion held on the record.)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


261

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


262

THE STATE OF TEXAS *

COUNTY OF NUECES *

I, Sara E. Rivera, Official Court Reporter,

in and for the 117th District Court of Nueces County,

State of Texas, do hereby certify that the above and

foregoing contains a true and correct transcription of

all portions of evidence and other proceedings requested

in writing by counsel for the parties to be included in

this volume of the Reporter's Record, in the

above-styled and numbered cause, all of which occurred

in open court or in chambers and were reported by me.

I further certify that this Reporter's Record

of the proceedings truly and correctly reflects the

exhibits, if any, admitted, tendered in an offer of

proof or offered into evidence.

I further certify that the total cost for the

preparation of this Reporter's Record is $ _________ and

was paid by/will be paid by _______________________.

WITNESS MY OFFICIAL HAND, this the 13th day of

December, 2015.

/s/ Sara E. RiveraSARA E. RIVERA, Texas CSR 4626Expiration date: 12/31/2017Official Court Reporter17th District Court901 Leopard Street, Room 901.01Corpus Christi, Texas 78401361-888-0658

1 trial court cause no. 2015-dcv-0235-b 2 theresa gamez ... › wp-content › uploads › 2016 ›...

Documents