Submitted by CGN (not verified) on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 7:13pm.
I was on the jury for this trial. The attorneys for the plaintiffs were extremely competent & proffesional, so to refer to them as "bloodsuckers" is way off mark. Ms. Oxford deserved a much larger award from the Town of Holden Beach than was awarded in the settlment. Only people who "heard" ALL the testimony will agree.
There was never ever a monetary amount discussed; that would have been the second phase of the trial had we been able to come to a verdict.
During jury selection, it was made CLEAR that if any prospective jurors personally knew or had any involment/prejudices with ANY of the parties it needed to be disclosed.During deliberation it was apparent some jurors did not follow these directions during the selection proccesses & chose not to eliminate themselves. Perhaps they were unaware of thier own biases.
I was a juror...
I was on the jury for this trial. The attorneys for the plaintiffs were extremely competent & proffesional, so to refer to them as "bloodsuckers" is way off mark. Ms. Oxford deserved a much larger award from the Town of Holden Beach than was awarded in the settlment. Only people who "heard" ALL the testimony will agree.
There was never ever a monetary amount discussed; that would have been the second phase of the trial had we been able to come to a verdict.
During jury selection, it was made CLEAR that if any prospective jurors personally knew or had any involment/prejudices with ANY of the parties it needed to be disclosed.During deliberation it was apparent some jurors did not follow these directions during the selection proccesses & chose not to eliminate themselves. Perhaps they were unaware of thier own biases.