Though the jury has the difficult task of appraising what your loss means to you, your attorney is prohibited from asking them the one question that would most efficiently sketch a context for them: "If you lost your arm (or ten years of your life, or your child) as my client did, what would it take to offset that for you?"
What If The Defendant Is Lying?
Imagine that we know that the Defendant or his expert witness is lying to the jury in your case. The most your attorney can do is try to reveal the lie. We can't go the next step and tell the jury, "He lied to you." The Judge won't tell the jury this either. This is not usually a problem, as we have faith that the jury can recognize the lie when shown the facts. But it can become a problem if the jury wonders, though that man sure seemed to be lying, wouldn't the attorney or the Judge have said so?
Most civil lawsuits about damages can be divided into two types: suits on behalf of businesses, and suits on behalf of injured people. There is an enormous difference in how the law is applied to these situations. If a business sues for its damages, it is usually the case that it can seek to be compensated for the attorney's fees it was forced to invest to get justice.
When a person sues for injuries, that law not only tends to restrict the possibility of attorney's fees—it also prohibits your attorney from informing the jury that any fees will come from the award.
What If a Settlement Is Offered?
During the course of your case, we will look to extend an opportunity for a settlement that presents a win/win for the parties. For example, if a jury is predicted to find that the proper damages are $500,000, offering to resolve the case for $485,000 would save both sides money. The Defendant would save $15,000 and you would not have to invest the time and money that a trial always consumes.
But, no matter how reasonable the offer, your jury will never know that you tried to resolve the matter without a trial.
Can Admissions of Fault During Mediation Be Used Later?
Very few cases ever go to trial without first going to mediation. Mediation is a process where the sides discuss proposed terms of settlement. If they agree, your case ends then. If there is no agreement, it goes forward. Clients are often frustrated to hear a Defendant admit the wrongs and injuries at mediation, and then deny them at trial. This can happen because nothing said at mediation can be shared with the jury.
I Want Compensation But I Don't Want to Attack the Individual
As we tell our clients before they hire us, our goal is to help them, not hurt the Defendant. As a practical matter, this means that almost every case is designed to seek the Defendant's Insurance only. (One exception is when we are pursuing the truly evil: the murderer, the slumlord, the molester et cetera.)
Secrets of the Defendant's Strategy: Confusion = Win
It is easy to understand the threshold for what we, as the Plaintiff, need to do to win: show the jury that the credible evidence in the case favors, even slightly, the truth of our position. Sure, the Defendant can win if it discovers credible evidence that shows that our position is not true, but that is only one way it wins. The easier way is simply to try to confuse three people on a jury of twelve. Confusing is much easier than convincing.
As a result, in almost every case, the Defendant will avalanche the jury, often during their closing for the first time, with questions, arguments, and unrelated points in an attempt to create the impression of, gosh, I guess there are lots of issues that the Plaintiff didn't really explain. If the Defendant confuses three of the jurors, justice is denied.