| Like
everyone else, I took the mandatory Civics class in high school to learn basic
fundamentals of citizenship and operations of government, local and federal. Rights
of individuals was stressed in the study of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
From a practical standpoint, day-to-day application seems to be based on circumstances
and experiences encountered.
My first such experience as one called for
civic duty as a jurist was an eye-opener. Until then, my only exposure to courtroom
procedures and drama was the Perry Mason television series.
I received
the mail notification to appear for jury duty in the Harris County Civil Court
jurisdiction and complied. Jury duty was a full week commitment, whether selected
for a jury or not. A couple of hundred appeared on that Monday morning and waited
for our number to be called for interviewing by the designated attorneys for the
cases on the docket. A group would be called, questions asked individually, and
the attorneys would make a selection of twelve jurors and two alternates. It was
not clear to me how they made their determinations of who would, and who would
not, be selected.
Late in the afternoon on Monday, I went through that
process and was selected to a jury to start on Tuesday morning. We arrived, received
the routine instructions from the bench, and listened to opening remarks of the
plaintiff and defense attorneys. Our particular case was to hear charges against
an individual who allegedly had produced and sold a coating material that was
patented by another company.
Part of Tuesday and all day Wednesday and
Thursday we heard questions, answers, and testimonies pertaining to the ingredients
of the product, the relative amounts of each component, specifications, applications,
and other marketing aspects.
We came prepared Friday morning to start
deliberations only to be advised by the judge that the suit had been dismissed
and that we were free to leave. What kind of a trial hearing was this? Someone
later said that, evidently, the plaintiff wanted the information on the competitive
product to become public knowledge in the recordings and no longer confidential
or proprietary. As far as we knew, there were no restrictions placed on the defender.
In fact, it was never disclosed as to whether the competitive product infringed
on the patent, or not.
It seemed to me that this approach to gaining competitive
market strategies was a stretch on the judicial system. I know, personally, that
I was not pleased to have been a pawn in this game.
© Bruce
Martin
They
Shoe Horses, Don't They?
October 19, 2012 Guest column |
