Jurors in Salvation Army collapse quick to point out problems
The jurors, weighing millions of dollars in damages and fees in the 2013 building collapse, have been sticklers for following the rules.
No two juries are alike. They are, after all, made up of human beings. Some are decisive; others wind up "hung" – unable to reach a verdict.
Most are inscrutable while they are in court.
Over the last week, the panel of six men and six women hearing lawsuits over the deadly 2013 collapse that crushed a Salvation Army thrift store have been serious about following the rules laid down for them by Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge M. Teresa Sarmina.
Sarmina has been insistent that lawyers handling the high-tech trial get her approval before projecting any photos or documents onto the 10-foot-by-12-foot courtroom screen. It's a rule designed to guarantee that jurors only see evidence that the judge rules is admissible. But in cavernous Courtroom 653 at City Hall, desktop computer monitors are everywhere, used by lawyers and witnesses to view images before they are projected on the screen.
As the first images were prepared for screening at the trial's start last Monday, jurors' hands shot up. "We can see them," said one juror, referring to the lawyers' desktop monitors.
Now that's honesty triumphing over curiosity.
Over the next few days, Sarmina and the many lawyers in the courtroom worked at repositioning or turning off computer monitors flagged by the jury. The chair in the witness box and the monitor also had to be shifted.
Then there were the sidebars — private mid-trial in-court conferences among judge and lawyers to settle a legal or evidentiary issue.
With 20-some lawyers and millions of dollars in potential damages, legal fees and related expenses riding on the verdict, there have been a lot of those sidebars. They are meant to be brief but rarely are, and in Courtroom 653, they take place behind the judge's bench.
For the first few sidebars, the jurors' hands again shot toward the ornate ceiling: "We can hear you."
Again, Sarmina and lawyers tried to position themselves so they could hear each other but not project to the jury.
Such diligence inside the courtroom may prove useful outside of it as well, since the jury will have to avoid reading news reports and discussing the case, which they have been told could last several months.
