<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
     xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
     xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
     xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
     xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
     xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
     xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
     xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss"
     xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#"
     xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/">
    <channel>
        <title><![CDATA[jury - Nichols Law Firm]]></title>
        <atom:link href="https://www.nicholstriallaw.com/blog/tags/jury/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
        <link>https://www.nicholstriallaw.com/blog/tags/jury/</link>
        <description><![CDATA[Nichols Law Firm's Website]]></description>
        <lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 Aug 2026 06:40:30 GMT</lastBuildDate>
        
        <language>en-us</language>
        
            <item>
                <title><![CDATA[NC Senate Bill 33 and Loss of Liberty:  How the NC GOP rolls back 235 years of independence and makes big PHARMA the new “King”]]></title>
                <link>https://www.nicholstriallaw.com/blog/two-hundred-and-thirty-five-years-ago-to-the-day-north-carolina-was-the-first-of-the-colonies-to-authorize-its-delegates-to/</link>
                <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.nicholstriallaw.com/blog/two-hundred-and-thirty-five-years-ago-to-the-day-north-carolina-was-the-first-of-the-colonies-to-authorize-its-delegates-to/</guid>
                <dc:creator><![CDATA[Nichols Law Firm]]></dc:creator>
                <pubDate>Tue, 12 Apr 2011 14:50:00 GMT</pubDate>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[Current Affairs]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[Insurance Law]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[NC Law Changes]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[Personal Injury Law]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[Tort Reform]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[Wrongful Death]]></category>
                
                
                    <category><![CDATA[emergency room immunity]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[Halifax Resolves]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[House Tort Reform]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[jury]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[liberty]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[medical malpractice]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[NC history]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[NC tea party]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[NCGA]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[NCGOP]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[personal injury]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[Rep. Johnathan Rhyne]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[rights]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[SB33]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[Senate bIll 33]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[tea party]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[trial by jury]]></category>
                
                
                
                <description><![CDATA[<p>Two Hundred and Thirty-five years ago to the day, North Carolina was the first of the Colonies to authorize its delegates to declare independence from Great Britain. So how is this relevant to “tort reform” and the pending legislation called Senate Bill 33 in the North Carolina House? Well, this law, proposed by Rep. Johnathan&hellip;</p>
]]></description>
                <content:encoded><![CDATA[
<p>Two Hundred and Thirty-five years ago to the day, North Carolina was the first of the Colonies to authorize its delegates to declare independence from Great Britain.</p>



<p><strong>So how is this relevant to “tort reform” and the pending legislation called Senate Bill 33 in the North Carolina House?</strong> Well, this law, proposed by Rep. Johnathan Rhyne (R- Lincolnton), takes away an essential ingredient of Liberty of the people of North Carolina- The right to a jury trial.</p>



<p>Rep. Rhyne’s bill says that when a citizen is hurt or killed by a negligent emergency room physician, or nurse, or hospital worker, that injured person has no right to sue for negligence. Further, the bill says that when a citizen of North Carolina is injured or killed by a defective drug manufactured ANYWHERE in the world, that citizen can not sue the manufacturer if the drug has been “approved” by a state or federal agency. Taking away the “right to redress” or “the right to sue” is the same as depriving someone the right to a jury trial. If you can’t sue, you can’t get a jury. The doors to the court house are closed to these people.</p>



<p>The Halifax resolves speciically address the right to trial by jury. In the Resolves the authors talk about the King seizing “<em>Ships belonging to America” </em>which<em> “are declared prizes of War” </em>and that the colonies have been deprived the legal right to get these ships back or enter into a process of determining the legal rights to the ships: “<em>And …the United Colonies and their sincere desire to be reconciled to the mother Country on Constitutional Principles, have procured no mitigation of the aforesaid Wrongs and usurpations and no hopes remain of obtaining redress by those Means alone which have been hitherto tried.”</em></p>



<p>Rep. Rhyne’s proposed legislation takes us back to the days of being subjugated to the King and the Crown. Of course, one might make the distinction that under Rhyne’s law, the State of North Carolina is not “profiting” from the people. That is true, but Rhyne’s law is even WORSE.</p>



<p>Under Rhyne’s proposals, the State of North Carolina not only denies “obtaining redress” but does so to the financial advantage of international drug companies and for-profit hospitals and corporate physician groups.</p>



<p>This law is a glaring example of “Big Government” taking fundamental liberties of THE PEOPLE and redistributing the spoils of war to anti-liberty, big monied cronies.</p>



<p><strong>Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence and the third President of the United States, said, “I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.”</strong><br><br>Senate Bill 33 takes away the trial by jury of people injured by negligent doctors and also those hurt or killed by defective drug products. These people are completely deprived of their liberty to hold bad actors accountable for their wrongs.<br><br>Why is the NC GOP rolling back our rights to pre-independence days?<br><br>Why did certain colonists remain loyal to the King? Scholars say one unifying characteristics of Loyalists to the Crown during the Revolution was this: They had a long-standing sentimental attachment to Britain, often with business ties. Also known as MONEY.&nbsp;</p>



<p>How much did Rep. Jonathan Rhyne take from Big PHARMA and Medical Lobbyists?<br><br>PLEASE: preserve your liberty and rights. Call Anyone on this list and tell them to vote NO to SB33: <a href="https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AlinyCcVT4eGdGZLZU95VTREcW12RXBoLXlKU2paSWc&hl=en#gid=0" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AlinyCcVT4eGdGZLZU95VTREcW12RXBoLXlKU2paSWc&hl=en#gid=0</a></p>



<p>The below is from: <a href="http://ncpedia.org/history/usrevolution/halifax-resolves" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">http://ncpedia.org/history/usrevolution/halifax-resolves</a></p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-halifax-resolves">HALIFAX&nbsp;RESOLVES</h2>



<p>Excerpted from “Historical Miscellanea: An Early History of North Carolina,” <a href="http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=%22north%20carolina%20manual%22%20AND%20mediatype%3Atexts" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><em>North Carolina Manual</em></a>, <em>1991-1992</em>, published biennially by the NC Department of the Secretary of State.</p>



<p>North Carolina, on April 12, 1776, authorized her delegates to the <a href="http://www.pbs.org/ktca/liberty/chronicle_philadelphia1776.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Continental Congress</a> to vote for independence. This was the first official action by a colony calling for independence. The 83 delegates present in Halifax at the <a href="http://www.learnnc.org/lp/editions/nchist-revolution/4259" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Fourth Provincial Congress</a> unanimously adopted the Halifax Resolves, which read as follows:</p>



<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
<p><em>The Select Committee taking into Consideration the usurpations and violences attempted and committed by the King and Parliament of Britain against America, and the further Measures to be taken for frustrating the same, and for the better defence of this province reported as follows, to wit,</em></p>



<p><em>It appears to your Committee that pursuant to the Plan concerted by the British Ministry for subjugating America, the King and Parliament of Great Britain have usurped a Power over the Persons and Properties of the People unlimited and uncontrouled and disregarding their humble Petitions for Peace, Liberty and safety, have made divers Legislative Acts, denouncing War Famine and every Species of Calamity daily employed in destroying the People and committing the most horrid devastations on the Country. That Governors in different Colonies have declared Protection to Slaves who should imbrue their Hands in the Blood of their Masters. That the Ships belonging to America are declared prizes of War and many of them have been violently seized and confiscated in consequence of which multitudes of the people have been destroyed or from easy Circumstances reduced to the most Lamentable distress.</em></p>



<p><em>And whereas the moderation hitherto manifested by the United Colonies and their sincere desire to be reconciled to the mother Country on Constitutional Principles, have procured no mitigation of the aforesaid Wrongs and usurpations and no hopes remain of obtaining redress by those Means alone which have been hitherto tried, Your Committee are of Opinion that the house should enter into the following Resolve, to wit</em></p>



<p><em>Resolved that the delegates for this Colony in the Continental Congress be impowered to concur with the other delegates of the other Colonies in declaring Independency, and forming foreign Alliances, resolving to this Colony the Sole, and Exclusive right of forming a Constitution and Laws for this Colony, and of appointing delegates from time to time (under the direction of a general Representation thereof to meet the delegates of the other Colonies for such purposes as shall be hereafter pointed out.</em></p>
</blockquote>



<p>The Halifax Resolves were important not only because they were the first official action calling for independence, but also because they were not unilateral recommendations. They were instead recommendations directed to all the colonies and their delegates assembled at the Continental Congress in Philadelphia. Virginia followed with her own recommendations soon after the adoption of the Halifax Resolution, and eventually on July 4, the final draft of the <a href="http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Declaration of Independence</a> was signed. William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, and John Penn were the delegates from North Carolina who signed the Declaration of Independence.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
            </item>
        
            <item>
                <title><![CDATA[How NOT To Avoid Jury Duty]]></title>
                <link>https://www.nicholstriallaw.com/blog/how-not-to-avoi/</link>
                <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.nicholstriallaw.com/blog/how-not-to-avoi/</guid>
                <dc:creator><![CDATA[Nichols Law Firm]]></dc:creator>
                <pubDate>Tue, 10 Jul 2007 15:45:00 GMT</pubDate>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[News and Law for Non-lawyers]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[Personal Injury Law]]></category>
                
                
                    <category><![CDATA[avoid]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[duty]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[jail]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[jury]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[law]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[NC]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[personal injury]]></category>
                
                
                
                <description><![CDATA[<p>This just in from www.cnn.com Every once in a while someone goes a little too far in trying to avoid jury service. Looks like this guy went overboard in his attempt to avoid service on a grand jury, which amittedly, can take a lot of time. I think the Judge did the right thing here.&hellip;</p>
]]></description>
                <content:encoded><![CDATA[
<p><strong>This just in from <a href="http://www.cnn.com">www.cnn.com</a></strong></p>



<p><strong>Every once in a while someone goes a little too far in trying to avoid jury service. Looks like this guy went overboard in his attempt to avoid service on a grand jury, which amittedly, can take a lot of time.</strong></p>



<p><strong>I think the Judge did the right thing here. Jury duty is one of the very few real things we can do to actively participate in our democracy.</strong></p>



<p><strong>BARNSTABLE, Massachusetts (AP)</strong> — A Cape Cod man who claimed he was homophobic, racist and a habitual liar to avoid jury duty earned an angry rebuke from a judge on Monday, who referred the case to prosecutors for possible charges.</p>



<p>Daniel Ellis’ excuses to try to get out of jury duty didn’t sit well with the judge.</p>



<p>“In 32 years of service in courtrooms, as a prosecutor, as a defense attorney and now as a judge, I have quite frankly never confronted such a brazen situation of an individual attempting to avoid juror service,” Barnstable Superior Court Judge Gary Nickerson told Daniel Ellis, according to a preliminary court transcript of the exchange.</p>



<p>Ellis, of Falmouth, had been called to court with about 60 other potential jurors for possible service on a 23-member grand jury.</p>



<p>On a questionnaire that all potential jurors fill out, Ellis wrote that he didn’t like homosexuals and blacks. He then echoed those sentiments in an interview with Nickerson.</p>



<p>“You say on your form that you’re not a fan of homosexuals,” Nickerson said.</p>



<p>“That I’m a racist,” Ellis interrupted.</p>



<p>“I’m frequently found to be a liar, too. I can’t really help it,” Ellis added.</p>



<p>“I’m sorry?” Nickerson said.</p>



<p>“I said I’m frequently found to be a liar,” Ellis replied.</p>



<p>“So, are you lying to me now?” Nickerson asked.</p>



<p>“Well, I don’t know. I might be,” was the response.</p>



<p>Ellis then admitted he really didn’t want to serve on a jury.</p>



<p>“I have the distinct impression that you’re intentionally trying to avoid jury service,” Nickerson said.</p>



<p>“That’s true,” Ellis answered.</p>



<p>Nickerson ordered Ellis taken into custody. He was released later Monday morning.</p>



<p>Ellis could face perjury and other charges.</p>



<p>Chris Nichols<br><a href="/">www.NicholsTrialLaw.com</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
            </item>
        
            <item>
                <title><![CDATA[The Truth That Juries Never Get To See]]></title>
                <link>https://www.nicholstriallaw.com/blog/the_truth_that/</link>
                <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.nicholstriallaw.com/blog/the_truth_that/</guid>
                <dc:creator><![CDATA[Nichols Law Firm]]></dc:creator>
                <pubDate>Fri, 01 Jun 2007 14:07:00 GMT</pubDate>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[News and Law for Non-lawyers]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[Personal Injury Law]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[Tort Reform]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[Trial Tips and Strategies]]></category>
                
                
                    <category><![CDATA[allstate]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[attorney]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[injury]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[insurance]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[jury]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[lawyer]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[mistrial]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[NC]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[personal injury]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[settlement]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[trial]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[verdict]]></category>
                
                
                
                <description><![CDATA[<p>As I’m getting ready for a trial, I’m constantly reminded that the “reason the case is going to trial” has more to do with the defendant’s insurance company than anything else. It’s frustrating as an attorney fighting for justice because I have the burden of proof for the “facts” of the case, but what the&hellip;</p>
]]></description>
                <content:encoded><![CDATA[
<p>As I’m getting ready for a trial, I’m constantly reminded that the “reason the case is going to trial” has more to do with the defendant’s insurance company than anything else. It’s frustrating as an attorney fighting for justice because I have the burden of proof for the “facts” of the case, but what the jury really needs to hear, I’m not allowed to tell them.</p>



<p>Why? Well, the insurance industry has effectively “gagged” anyone from telling the jurors why the case is going to trial. Typically, the reason for that is that the insurance company who pulls the strings on the defendant, WANTS the case to go to trial, because they know that for every case that goes to trial, 99 just give up, and the insurance company gets to pay less than what is “fair and just” as the rules require.</p>



<p>Here are some of the “hidden” rules and insurance practices that you only learn about after you’ve been hurt by someone else’s negligence.</p>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-you-can-not-mention-the-insurance-company-at-trial">You Can Not Mention the Insurance Company at Trial</h2>



<p>Under no circumstances can a Plaintiff mention the word “Insurance” in trial, even though the person who is being sued has insurance. You cannot mention Insurance, nor can your witnesses, including the doctors, police or anyone else who may testify for you. If you do, the judge will grant a “mistrial” and we will have to try the case over again.</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-nc-rule-of-evidence-rule-411-liability-insurance">NC Rule of Evidence: Rule 411. Liability insurance</h3>



<p>Evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is not admissible upon the issue whether he acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully. This rule does not require the exclusion of evidence of insurance against liability when offered for another purpose, such as proof of agency, ownership, or control, or bias or prejudice of a witness.</p>



<p>Insurance is available in at least 99% of all auto accident cases that go to trial. But, the insurance industry has lobbied the legislature so diligently that it has created a set of court rules that absolutely prohibits the lawyers representing injured people from telling the jury the truth that the little old lady in the defendant’s chair has had no choice in whether she is sitting there or not. She cannot settle the case even if she believes you deserve everything you are asking for.</p>



<p>The insurance company is completely in control of how much to offer the injured person, whether to settle the claim or not, and what they should contest in the lawsuit. So, even if the little old lady sitting in the defendant’s chair wanted to settle the lawsuit for the same amount as what the injured person is requesting, the insurance company won’t offer the money.</p>



<p>In North Carolina, the Plaintiff has virtually no right to sue an insurance company for improperly denying a claim or delaying the payment of what is due. Again, effective political contributions, and legal maneuvering by insurers have resulted in these rules.</p>



<p><strong>Its cheaper to deny the claim than settle.</strong></p>



<p>Believe it or not, insurance companies have saved Billions of dollars since the mid 1990s, by improperly denying claims, and otherwise forcing litigation by paying far below the jury verdict average to settle claims. Frivolous defenses to legitimate claims have resulted in an increase in litigation, against people insured by these companies. This is part of a deliberate claim handling program implemented by <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2007/02/12/magazines/moneymag/insurance_sv.moneymag/index.htm">McKinsey & Company</a>, the same consulting firm that set up Enron’s business model, at many of the nation’s largest insurance companies. <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-insure5apr05,0,3061059.story?coll=la-home-headlines">See “Record Insurance Profits” Article</a></p>



<p>But, in jury selection, jurors often mention that if the injuries are real, the case should have settled with the insurer. That is exactly what the insurance company is hoping for. It doesn’t matter if they offered $0.50 on a claim worth $500,000. The jury will never know, because the lawyers are prohibited from ever mention the settlement negotiations during the trial.</p>



<p>McKinsey & Company counted on this when they told Allstate Insurance in the mid 1990’s to quit treating people with “Good Hands” and instead treat them with “Boxing Gloves.” When Allstate forced more litigation and posted record profits, the rest of the insurance industry followed their lead. It is now standard operating procedure in the insurance industry to spend multiple times what a reasonable settlement would be to fight the claim, simply to prove to injured people and their lawyers that filing a claim for injuries is more trouble than it is worth. <a href="http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0702/26/acd.02.html">Read a Transcript of Anderson Cooper’s Interview with one of Allstate’s Victims</a></p>



<p>That is because the end result is that most lawyers will not take the cases, and people will not file the claims themselves. These improper denials have led to a huge spike in bankruptcies in the United States, the leading cause of which is an inability to pay for medical bills. So, when jurors turn injured people away, everyone but the person at fault, and their insurer pay for the damage. Instead, the jurors take the financial burden themselves through higher taxes to pay for the bankruptcy. For more, see the article entitled <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_18/b3982072.htm" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">“In Tough Hands”</a> in BusinessWeek.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
            </item>
        
    </channel>
</rss>