A interesting thing I have done so far is I attended the Trial I mentioned in my last submission, that started at the end of September. It was taking place at the Bronx Supreme Court, the first few days were jury selection and that was just the attorney who attended the first 2 days. After that each day for a week and half we had to be in the court house from 8am till most days 5pm. The whole process felt like a watered down version of “Suites”. However, that doesn’t mean I didn’t enjoy it. Something many TV-shows and movies forget to display is the talking and the amount of time that goes on. Most of the time in the court room consists of the lawyers talking and presenting the information to the jury. There are some witness that speak but, that was the doctor who did the neck surgery. They are bought to the stand by the Plaintiff counsel. Going into detail on reason why the plaintiff needed the surgery and what the surgery consisted of. I did learn from the attorney before the trial was how much a doctor gets paid to testify in court. I won’t disclose the amount, but it was pretty surprising. Yet when you put it into context it makes sense since the doctor is in court all day they are losing out on patients, to be in court. Another aspect I enjoyed was actually taking notes on the defendants argument, doctors testimony, and plaintiff testimony. The attorney I was working with asked me to take notes on that and to give my opinion on how I felt about what they said. Basically he wanted to know from the perspective of someone that could be chosen as a juror. Since I don’t have too much knowledge of the proceeding in a court room, I believe the input I was giving was helpful to kind of have another set of eyes from a different view. I did find some aspects a bit difficult just on understand the “why”. I would ask myself why was this said or why something was done a certain way. I couldn’t ask the attorney at the moment but when we would have a recess I was able to ask him the different questions I had and was able to understand the reasoning and logic behind it. Towards the end of the trial and the jurors were deciding the attorney were able to come to discuss a possible agreement which is called “high, lows”. Its basically before the jury announces the verdict the attorney can discuss what is the lowest the plaintiff is willing to take and the highest the defendant is will to give. Fortunately they came to an agreement before the jury announced their verdict. Yet they jury actually decided on about 350,000 more than what they attorneys agreed on. It’s a bit unfortunate that the plaintiff missed out on an extra 350,000 but when it comes to the jury it is sometimes a risky situation and I can understand why they decided to settle, since they can decide “all or nothing”. Possibly out of fear or not wanting to be to cocky. Either way the plaintiff did get a large sum of money in the end and was left happy with what they were able to take home. The whole process from start to finish was really interesting to me especially seeing it first hand and learning the reasoning behind it and experiencing it first hand.