Adventures in jury duty

I took a little hiatus from blogging over the last two months so will be playing catch up over the next few weeks. Although my blog about my adventures in jury duty is a little late, I figure it's better late than never. Enjoy!

************************
I’ve received a summons for jury duty on at least five occasions in my life. Only once have I ever had to report in person, and even then I was excused after an hour of sitting in the waiting room. When I reported for jury duty in April 2010 I figured I’d be back at work the next day…unfortunately that wasn’t going to happen. They gave all of us in the waiting room 14 page questionnaires to fill out. These would be reviewed by the lawyers and we would find out the next day whether or not we had been selected. As I started filling it out, I had a sinking feeling that I might be picked…..

The case
The plaintiff, whom I’ll refer to as Ms. X, was suing the Archdiocese of San Francisco/Holy Cross and Donohoe and Carrol. The reason? Her family’s tombstone fell and landed on her feet at Holy Cross Cemetery in Colma. She was suing for damages and emotional distress. She claimed to have developed complex regional pain syndrome as a result of the accident.

Selecting the jury
I reported for day two of jury duty. The courtroom assistant came out into the hallway and started to name the first twelve jurors. I was lucky Juror #9. I went in and took my seat in the jury box. Those that weren’t picked got to sit in the audience as they had the potential to be called if any of us were excused by counsel.

Several people were obviously trying to get out of jury duty. I briefly thought of ways to get out of being picked but then my conscience got the best of me so I sucked it up and was honest when I was questioned. I was definitely entertained by some of the responses that the other potential jurors gave.

Some of the most entertaining responses came from Juror #10 who was sitting next to me. He was a Frenchman that just could not comprehend why this case was even going to court. According to him, “In Fraaaance, ze family iz responsible for ze maintenance of ze tombstone. It iz very simple- if it falls on you, it iz your fault.” Awesome.

He was excused shortly thereafter


Opening arguments
Ms. X’s attorney went for the “Steel Magnolias” approach with his opening statement. They obviously wanted to pull at our heartstrings as they flashed pictures of Ms. X playing baseball 30 years ago, with her grandchildren, scuba diving, riding a horse, etc. Touching? Yes. Relevant? No. Their claim was that the Archdiocese was responsible for the accident because the base of the monument was tilted which caused it to fall. They claimed that Donohoe and Carrol were negligent because they did not install dowels to pin the monument to the base in case the mortar adhering the two pieces together failed.

The defense attorneys went after the plaintiff’s credibility-they alluded to holes in the plaintiff’s account of the event, issues with her mental health over the years and a history of litigation. The Archdiocese's attorney argued that they did maintain the grounds and did fix known hazards. He also argued that monuments were the property of those who purchased it. Therefore,it would be the owner's responsibility to maintain the stones. Donohoe and Carrol's attorney argued that in 1984 (when the monument was purchased) there was no industry standard regarding the use of dowels in monuments and that 6" wide stones are sturdy enough with mortar alone.

The plaintiff
In her signed deposition, the plaintiff claimed to have been brushing off/cleaning the tombstone before the accident. She said she stood up and was standing about 2 feet in front of the tombstone to “admire her work” when the tombstone suddenly fell over. She then claimed that she attempted to “catch the tombstone” and it fell directly on to both her feet causing her to fall backwards and her head.Her lawyer then proceeded to show us pictures of the area with x’s marking where the plaintiff claimed to have been standing.

Already, lots of things weren’t making sense. If a 300 lb stone was falling, isn’t your gut reaction to take a step back? If something pins your feet down and you fall back, how do you hit your head on the ground before your body has landed? If no force was being exerted on the tombstone, what caused it to fall?


Expert witnesses
During this trial I learned more then I ever wanted to know about:
1) How upright tombstones are made,
2) Regulations (or more the lack thereof) surrounding tombstone
manufacturing in 1984,
3) Complex regional pain syndrome, and
4) Undifferentiated somatoform disorder.

There was an army of expert witnesses that were called to the stand-soil engineers, structural engineers, psychiatrists, psychologists, monument architects, orthopedic surgeons. Both sides called their own witnesses and each side’s witnesses supported their argument. Not surprising since I wouldn’t expect them to put a witness on the stand that didn’t support their side. So, you have two psychiatrists giving differing opinions, two soil engineers giving opposing arguments…and on and on and on. It was also interesting because some of the information that they had the witnesses provide us were not always relevant to the case. For example, the plaintiff’s attorneys had their structural engineer do a force test to show how much force needed to be applied to a monument that was only attached to a base with mortar to make the structure fail. Why would we need this information if Ms. X’s signed deposition said she was just standing there when the monument just fell over, no force applied?

The entire process was pointless to me because you could only take what they were saying with a grain of salt. It reminded me of movie trailers where they show a quote like, “Sieskel and Ebert say this is the movie of the year….” When the entire quote actually was, “Sieskel and Ebert say this is the movie of the year if you like pointless, stupid comedies.”

Cross Examination
I had a feeling that once the defense attorneys got to cross examine Ms. X things would get ugly. It wasn’t as exciting as having Jack Nicholson scream, “You can’t handle the truth!” but there were definitely some charged moments.

Something to seriously consider if you ever plan on suing anyone-be prepared for your entire history to be dredged up and announced to an entire courtroom of complete strangers. The defense brought up everything they could find to discredit Ms. X. She was a hypochondriac with a long history of mental health issues. She was estranged from three of her four daughters, had a history of two prior workman’s comp claims, had sued the State of California and was a recovering alcoholic. Oh…and she had broken her toe at least a year after the tombstone incident, right before she supposedly showed signs and symptoms of complex regional pain syndrome. Important fact that maybe her attorney left out for a reason? Um…yeah.

During Ms. X’s cross examination she conveniently “couldn’t remember” any answers surrounding questions that might discredit her. When questioned about what she was actually doing prior to/when the tombstone fell, she could not answer. At least three different scenarios were presented to the jury regarding the actual accident:
1) In her deposition, she had stated that she had been cleaning the
monument and had just been standing there for a “period of time” when
it just fell over,
2) During her testimony on the stand when her own lawyers were questioning
her she said she could not remember if she maybe been in front of it
and used the tombstone to pull herself up, and
3) When she went to see her doctor, she told her that she was standing in
front of the tombstone when it fell and then she fell back into an open
grave.

In regards to the last “scenario” she later went back to that doctor once she was in litigation and told her she wanted to “correct” what she told her. The defense attorney continued to press her to find out which one was the truth, and when her non-answering of questions didn’t stop him from continuing to push for an asnwer she broke down on the stand and launched into a fit of hysterics.

As the defense presented more and more concrete evidence that discredited Ms. X, what popped in my mind were the words of Chris Rock-“Whatever happened to just…plain….crazy?” All joking aside, I did feel bad for her. It was obvious that she is a sick individual who would benefit from ongoing mental health treatment. Watching the defense attorneys tear her apart on the stand was hard to watch.

Deliberation
Once closing statements were issued, the judge went over the guidelines that had to be used to determine our decision. We were each given a 50 page document that explained this criteria.

There were four parts to our decision:

1) To determine whether or not the Archdiocese/Holy Cross was guilty, we had to find that ALL of the following criteria was met:
i. Ownership-Did the Archdiocese own the land and the monument?
ii. Was the Archdiocese negligent in the maintenance of the property?
iii. Was Ms. X harmed?
iv. Was the Archdiocese’s negligence a substantial factor in causing the harm?
2) To determine whether or not Donohoe and Carrol was guilty, we had to find that ALL of the following criteria was met:
i. Did Donohoe and Carrol make and sell the monument?
ii. Were they negligent or failed to give sufficient warning regarding the possibility of being harmed if an individual used the monument in a foreseeable way.
iii. Was Ms. X harmed by the monument falling on her?
iv. Was their negligence a substantial factor in causing the harm?

3) If we found in favor of the plaintiff for either/both of the defendants, we had to determine if Ms. X’s negligence was a factor. If so, what percent would we hold her accountable? The award would be adjusted accordingly.

4) If we found in favor of the plaintiff for either/both of the defendants, we had to determine the amount of damages-both economic (lost wages, medical bills) and non-economic (pain and suffering).


What was the most maddening part of the deliberation process was that we could base our decision only on the evidence that was provided during the case. No Google… no independent researching of any kind. You are trying to determine which witnesses and experts you either want to believe or disbelieve based on the arguments that were presented. We had to take into account which had been retained by each side, which were unpaid witnesses and whether or not that meant we were potentially only hearing selective information. We had so many questions regarding the things that were not addressed during the course of the trial. When the foundation for the monument was poured, did the cemetery install one or two piers? Was the sinking of the base a factor in the deterioration of the mortar between the foundation and the tombstone? What actually happened that caused the tombstone to fall on Mrs. X? Since all the engineers proved that the monument could only have fallen if force were applied, if the plaintiff had fallen and used the tombstone to catch herself, would a 3/8 inch dowel have been sufficient in preventing the tombstone from falling or would the outcome have been the same?

Ms. X was her own worst enemy in this case because of her inability to accurately recall the events leading up the accident-she couldn’t even confirm her own sworn testimony. Given that she was an unreliable witness, why didn’t her attorneys do more to build a solid case for what would have happened had adequate preventive measures been in place? Part of their argument was that had the die been attached to the base with both mortar and dowels, the accident would not have happened. Therefore, why didn’t they have their expert witness who was a structural engineer do a force test with an exemplar monument with these items in place? Why did she only do force testing with an un-mortared exemplar monument? Based on the evidence presented, her counsel seemed to jump the gun and focus solely on her medical issues. It was as if they thought the case was a done deal and the jury just needed the evidence to award damages. Or, maybe they knew they did not have a solid case and were hoping to cloud our reasoning by appealing to our emotions. Either way it is unfortunate because we will never know if there was additional evidence that would have helped change our decision.

Ultimately, the jury found in favor of both the Archdiocese/Holy Cross and Donohoe and Carrol. The deciding factors were that none of us could say that the plaintiff’s side had:
1. Provided the burden of proof to prove that negligence from either party
was a substantial factor in causing the accident. And,
2. That the monument was used in a foreseeable way.

Without that, there was no way all the criteria could be proved.

What was very interesting during the deliberation process was that all the jurors seemed to be torn. While we didn’t find either defendant guilty based on the criteria that we had to consider, we all did agree that an industry standard should be in place for tombstones and that the cemetery should be more proactive versus reactive to potential hazards. None of us denied that Ms. X was injured and that the tombstone did fall. Unfortunately, we could only render the verdict based on the criteria we were given.

What was probably the most difficult part for everyone was when we went back into the courtroom to deliver the verdict. We knew we had to face Mrs. X. Not only was our verdict read, but then the judge went one by one through each juror to confirm how each of us had voted. I could not watch her face while the verdict was read.

This was definitely an eye opening experience. It was interesting to see firsthand how our legal system works and how there are a lot of flaws in how “justice” is served. With all that said, I hope I NEVER have to serve on a jury again.

Bring it on, SF Half!

It's official-I'm in for the SF Half Marathon on July 25, 2010. This will be the third time I've run this course (2nd half) and the fourth half marathon I've run overall. This year I am determined to break the two hour mark. Last year was a major disappointment- even though I had been battling some health issues so did not train as much overall, I was still incredibly disappointed when I ended with my slowest time ever.

2007 2:04:14
2009 2:13:07

Last year I was on pace to break 2 hours during the first half of the run, but it was at mile 10 that I hit the wall. My legs had built up so much lactic acid that it felt like I was trying to run through water and I had to really fight to make it to the finish. I have never had that happen before so hopefully I won't have a repeat. I am still proud that I finished, but this year it's on!

Since I had completely killed my last pair of running shoes, I finally replaced them with my trusty Brooks Adrenaline GTS 9's. I'm an over-pronator with low arches, so after much trial and error these are the best. They provide the most cushioning and are the only shoes I've found so far that don't give me blisters on my inner arches every time I run over 7 miles. The runner ups would have to be the Asics Gel Kayanos.

My training plan is pretty old school. I don't belong to a gym, I don't have a personal trainer, I don't have one of those fancy heart monitors and I don't eat those nasty Gu shots/energy beans/energy bars during my runs. The only things I do are:
1) Slowly increase my mileage every week-usually only getting in one good long run on the weekend and then the rest are a combo of short runs/hill sprints.
2) Use a foam roller to stretch out my IT band at least every night. That has been the one thing that has helped me to avoid the major knee pain I was having several years ago.
3) Stretch nightly.
3) Three to four times a week I use an exercise ball for my ab workouts and also lift 10 lb free weights to build up my arms. I could probably go up to heavier weights at this point but instead I just do more repetitions.

During my runs I usually drink water at the water fountains along my running routes. I don't like having to carry anything while I run and tried one of those waist belts to carry a water bottle but it was just too uncomfortable. The only thing that I will probably bring back into my routine are my once a week yoga sessions. It was a great way to relieve stress and it really helped to build up my core strength and flexibility. I still do it at home, but I am not as disciplined as when I was going to a regular class.

Keeping my fingers crossed that I can train hard enough this time around to break my time. Good luck to all the other runners that are training out there!

Bay to Breakers 2010

For the last four years, my husband and I have been wanting to get a group together to dress up for Bay to Breakers. Yet every year B2B sneaks up on us and we don't pull anything together in time. This year Jess and Mike convinced us to come out so we planned to use Saturday as costume making day. While we had the best intentions, Friday night we went out to celebrate Mayra's birthday and ended up having a little too much fun. (Welcome to the 31 club, Mayra!) Needless to say, Saturday was spent not moving on the couch and we accomplished absolutely nada costume-wise.

We still ended up going and threw together makeshift costumes. It was cold and I was sleepy so the most I could muster up were devil horns, a pitchfork and a water bottle filled with mimosas. We entered the course around 9 am at Van Ness and Hayes. First people we see were girls dressed up in hot dog on a stick uniforms with shorts that said "Everyone loves a weiner" on the back of them. That should have been our first clue as to what was in store for us.

This year there were A LOT of naked people. While I say more power to you if you want to let it all hang out, I also have to say that naked people + running = really bad visuals. Even worse? Sloppy drunk naked people. I knew I brought the pitchfork for a reason. As crazy as it got out there, it was definitely fun, especially since it's one of those "only in San Francisco" events. We ended our B2B adventures with brunch at Squat and Gobble on Haight Street and then Harry's on Fillmore for Bloody Marys. :)

Since I later discovered that there are naked people in the background of a lot of my pictures (and I'd like to keep my blog PG-13) here are my edited Top 6 costumes:


6) The Pope



5) Drunken Smurfs



4) Tea Party



3) American Gladiators



2) No on Prop 16!



1) Drunken garden gnomes



Next year we have to pull something together to celebrate the 100 year anniversary. Anyone have any ideas???

Green Chile Pork Posole

I've made several versions of pork posole before, but this time I decided to try the Green Chile Pork Posole recipe in the April 2009 edition of Bon Appetit (recipe below). The other versions I've attempted have just been okay-I felt there was just something missing in the seasoning as the flavors seemed very one dimensional. This version used tomatillos so I was curious how that would taste.

I have never used tomatillos before, so when I found them in the store I wasn't quite sure what to make of these freaky looking vegetables.



Once the leafy wrapping is taken off, the vegetable itself is like an under-ripe tomato




One of the reasons I also like the recipes for posole is because I get to use hominy. For those of you who have never had it before, it's almost like corn on steroids-very starchy and very dense.



The end result was tasty and is the best recipe for posole I have found so far. I like serving the dish over rice, but it can be wrapped in a tortilla or served with cornbread. This is also a great dish as leftovers and would be good to make ahead for large parties, especially since the flavors get a chance to deepen if made the night before.



Some tips:

1) Instead of regular chili powder I used ancho chili powder. I also added about 1 T of Mexican oregano. Next time, I will add some smoked paprika (one of my favorite spices) and tequila to see if that does anything to enhance the flavors in the dish. The idea for the tequila came from a cookbook I picked up in Mexico. I have added tequila to some beef stews before and think that it adds a subtle flavor to dishes.

2) I'm a lover of cilantro so will double the amount next time. I would also recommend sprinkling some finely chopped green onions and fresh lime juice.

3) The tomatillos did add a bit of tartness to the dish, so I think that it's worth using in other pork posole recipes.

4) This dish is not very spicy. Adding in some freshly chopped serrano chili peppers when you saute the garlic, onions and celery would probably kick it up a notch.

5) For you non-pork eaters, this dish would probably work well with chicken.



Green Chile Pork Posole
Bon Appetit, April 2009, p.23

1 T olive oil
2 c. chopped onions
1 c. chopped celery
4 garlic cloves, chopped
1 1-lb pork tenderloin, cut into 1/2 inch cubes
5 c. or more low-salt chicken broth
2 15-oz cans white or golden hominy, drained
12 oz. fresh tomatillos, husked, rinsed, coarsely chopped
2 7-oz cans diced mild green chiles, drained
4 t. ground cumin
4 t. chili powder
1/4 c. chopped fresh cilantro, plus additional for garnish


Heat oil in heavy large pot over medium-high heat. Add onions, celery and garlic. Saute until soft, about 7 minutes. Sprinkle pork with salt and pepper. Add pork to pot; cook until no longer pink on outside, stirring often, about 3 minutes. Add 5 cups broth and next 5 ingredients. Bring to boil, reduce heat to medium-low, and simmer uncovered until meat is tender, broth is reduced to thick sauce, and flavors blend, stirring occasionally, about 1 hour. Thin with additional broth if desired. Stir in 1/4 cu cilantro. Season to taste with salt and pepper. Divide among bowls, sprinkle with additional cilantro, and serve.

Bon Appetit's New York-Style Crumb Cake

I have a habit of ripping recipes out of my cooking magazines and saving them in binders. Right now I have three binders filled with these recipes-many I have made, many others that I still have yet to attempt. One of the ones I'd been wanting to try was the New York-Style Crumb Cake recipe from the April 2010 edition of Bon Appetit*. I love anything with a streusel topping and was curious as to how this would taste since one of the main ingredients in the cake is sour cream.

Baking first thing in the morning is probably best done after I've had my coffee. I started baking as soon as I woke up so we could have the cake for breakfast, but in my groggy state I failed to pay close attention to the directions. Halfway through I realized my error and had to start over. Oops.

After making a complete mess of my kitchen the finished product was delicious. I had been worried that the cake would be dry since the only ingredient that came close to a liquid was the sour cream, but the cake came out moist and light. My cake was definitely not as pretty as the picture in Bon Appetit so I will have to work on my presentation next time. :)

A couple of tips:

1) This recipe uses 3.5 sticks of butter. Since I'm not Paula Deen (a.k.a. The crazy Southern chef on the Food Network that will put butter on just about anything), I decided to use margarine for half of the amount in an attempt to make this slightly "healthier".

2) The recipe warns that the topping will be thick once sprinkled on. I thought I had been pretty liberal with my sprinkling (see below), but once the cake started baking and rising the streusel did not evenly coat the entire cake. I had left out about 3/4 cup of the topping so would recommend sprinkling all of it on the cake the next time around.

Pre-baking



Finished product




3) The cake should be baked for 70-75 minutes-at 60 minutes it was slightly under done.

Overall, a successful recipe. I saw Duane run by the bedroom in the afternoon with more cake, so I'm guessing he is happy with the results. Next project- pork posole.

*You can find the complete recipe on www.epicurious.com
http://www.epicurious.com/recipes/food/views/New-York-Style-Crumb-Cake-358217

Sunday brunch fun-Dutch Babies

Those of you who know me know that I have a deep love of bottomless mimosa brunches. But, even in my pre-drinking days I have always loved brunch. Growing up my mom almost always made brunch on Sundays and I've tried to continue that tradition in my adult life.

One of my favorite brunch dishes that my mom makes are her Dutch Babies. I'm not sure how to describe them, but the closest I can come is a cross between french toast and a souffle. Only four ingredients are needed (eggs, flour, milk and butter) and it's super simple to make.

Step 1: Preheat the oven to 425 degrees and measure out 1/4 cup of butter into a baking dish.



Step 2: Measure out the remaining ingredients- 4 eggs, 1 c. flour, 1 c. milk. Whisk together.



Step 3: Melt the butter in the baking dish until bubbling.



Step 4: Pour batter into pre-heated dish.



Step 5: Bake for 20 minutes.



And voila! Baked, buttery goodness. I like to top mine with powdered sugar, maple syrup and fresh berries. It would be equally yummy topped with carmelized apples or jam.



To make some healthy swaps, you could substitute egg beaters for the eggs and margarine instead of butter. As you can see, today was not one of those days. I love bacon and my favorite is the Niman Ranch Applewood Smoked Dry Cured Bacon that you can buy at Trader Joe's.

On a side note, this is also reason #250 for why I run. I try and justify my eating "non-healthy" things by thinking that it's balanced out by the amount of exercise I do. Hey, the thought process works for me!

I'm really excited to continuing blogging about my cooking adventures. I love cooking and look forward to sharing with you all. :)

Run Jenay Run

I've been lazy and have been putting off starting a blog (among other things), but I was inspired after reading my friend Mayra's. Linda gave me the inspiration for my blog's name. She is always saying "Run Jenay Run!" whenever I tell her I'm going for a run. Not sure what direction this will take but will definitely include running, my cooking experiments and my random life. Welcome and I hope you are entertained!