In the nuances of legal dialogue, the plaintiff’s voir dire often poses challenging rhetorical questions. For instance, a jury member, such as Ms. Smith, may be asked if they could award damages worth millions of dollars, should the presented evidence justify such a figure.
This scenario introduces an issue of ‘pre-commitments’ in damages, where the juror is probed to voice their ability to agree to significantly large damages even before the trial begins. It is usually asked in the following format: “Ms. Smith, if you are selected for this jury, and if the evidence proves to you that the damages to my client justify a high figure, like ten million dollars, would you be able to award damages at that level? What about you Mr. Jones, could you commit to being able to give a verdict of ten million dollars if the evidence justifies it?”.
These ‘pre-commitments’ can play a crucial role in the selection of a jury and may influence a trial’s outcome, as explored in a legal article by Holland & Hart.
Despite the absence of the article’s full text, our interpretation, based on the given metadata, is a reminder that ‘pre-commitments’ serves as a tool in developing a plaintiff’s case. The defendant’s legal team should be aware of and prepared for such tactics, to defend their client’s rights thoughtfully and effectively.