A reread of one of my favorite Grishams

I'm not sure if the essential premise of the story makes complete sense, but once you accept it, this book is fun. Reading this book in the 2020's leaves a different impression than reading in 1996 when it was first published. I was born in 1995 and know very few people who smoke. I have never seen an advertisement for cigarettes and I was very young when smoking sections in restaurants were banned in the state I live in. Because of this, suing a cigarette company for getting lung cancer seemed to me a bit ridiculous. Afterall, everyone knows smoking leads to lung cancer, and a smoker makes a concious choice to smoke knowing the risks. This is a point brought up in the novel, but times were different back them with studies more contested, and with those growing up in an environment where smoking was far more common, advertisements far more prevalent, and less known about the dangers. All this adds up to an interesting discussion about what cigarette companies should be liable for, and the plot outside of this trial felt secondary to the larger issue to me.

Another BookBub vintage novel. A very compelling subject matter. Why do we smoke cigarettes?! Simply because one gets addicted to tobacco. Some find it easy to quit, some don’t, even when facing death. But smoking cigarettes is only one aspect of this story. Big, corporate, powerful tobacco companies trying to convince the public that tobacco is not addictive and how the US legal system is corruptible. Fascinating read!

'The Runaway Jury' by John Grisham is a fun legal-thriller romp (as in a scathing tongue-in-cheek exposé) which follows a court case from beginning to end (thankfully very much simplified to basics if, gentle reader, one wants only a beach read). It is an interesting look at what very likely occurs sometimes in the selection of voters called in to report for a particular case for jury duty, even if the story wanders into wish-fulfillment/fantasy territory, imho.

The case being heard by the eponymous jury is one of the lawsuit types made possible by America's laws. The book is an inside look at how the (1996) legal system which supports the prosecution of 'torts' can be corrupted.

What a 'tort' is, from Wikipedia:

A tort, in common law jurisdictions, is a civil wrong that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. It can include the intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, financial losses, injuries, invasion of privacy, and many other things.

Tort law, where the purpose of any action is to obtain a private civil remedy such as damages, may be compared to criminal law, which deals with criminal wrongs that are punishable by the state. Tort law may also be contrasted with contract law which also provides a civil remedy after breach of duty; but whereas the contractual obligation is one chosen by the parties, the obligation in both tort and crime is imposed by the state. In both contract and tort, successful claimants must show that they have suffered foreseeable loss or harm as a direct result of the breach of duty.

Although crimes may be torts, the cause of legal action in civil torts is not necessarily the result of criminal action; the harm in civil torts may be due to negligence, which does not amount to criminal negligence. The victim of the harm can recover their loss as damages in a lawsuit. In order to prevail, the plaintiff in the lawsuit, commonly referred to as the injured party, must show that the actions or lack of action was the legally recognizable cause of the harm. The equivalent of tort in civil law jurisdictions is "delict".

Legal injuries are not limited to physical injuries and may include emotional, economic, or reputational injuries as well as violations of privacy, property, or constitutional rights. Torts comprise such varied topics as automobile accidents, false imprisonment, defamation, product liability, copyright infringement, and environmental pollution (toxic torts).
Compared to criminal cases, tort lawsuits have a lower burden of proof, namely "preponderance of evidence", rather than beyond a reasonable doubt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort


As I had a 101 class in 'contract law', and I have actually served on a 'tort' jury, I found Grisham's story of how lawyers might on occasion pick juries in infamous big-money lawsuits fascinating. In my own particularly event of service on a jury it was a nothing special. But through the years I have read about jury consulting firms.

From Wikipedia:

"Trial consulting is the use of social scientists, particularly psychologists and communication experts, and economists, to aid attorneys in the presentation of a criminal trial or civil lawsuit. Modern trial consultants help prepare witnesses, improve arguments and rhetoric, and select juries.

Although traditionally sophisticated jury selection methods were a mainstay of trial consultants, they now "place far less emphasis on jury selection than they did in the past", and many in the field now prefer the term "trial consulting" to "jury consulting". Since many cases are now settled out of court or decided by arbitration, some trial consulting firms have diversified to include mock mediation and arbitration sessions. This is also the reason that many jury/trial consultants are now referring to themselves as "litigation consultants".

The traditional mainstays of trial consulting remain important. They include witness preparation, shadow juries, mock trials, focus groups, community attitude surveys, and expert assistance with trial presentation."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_consulting


The handsome young man Nicholas Easter, the main character of 'The Runaway Jury', is being investigated. He has been called in for possible selection to serve on a Biloxi, Mississippi, tort-lawsuit jury. He is, apparently, a college student working as a clerk in a local electronics store, but the legal firm investigating him is uncertain whether he should be selected to serve on the jury hearing their client's case. They can't figure him out. How would he vote?

The clients, tobacco-products conglomerates, hired Ranklin Fitch, a jury consultant from Washington D.C., to investigate people who could be selected to serve on the jury. The law firm, Whitney & Cable & White, was in turn hired by Fitch to defend the tobacco companies in the current lawsuit filed against them by a widow who lost her husband to lung cancer. Fitch is in charge of all of the lawyers and investigators. He has been hired to help in many trials which have been brought against the cigarette companies. He has never lost a single case. As a result, he is enormously confident.

Fitch treats the lawyers with a vicious scorn. Fitch always wins! He uses what his investigators learn about the voters waiting in the jury room to be selected - bankruptcies, divorces, hobbies, jobs, vices - as leverage for possible secret bribery and intimidation later. This one possible voter has had an abortion! That person works for a hardware store chain owned by a tobacco conglomerate, and he wants a promotion! This person's business might be on the edge of closing! These four of the twelve folks smoke! Only those who can be encouraged to vote for the defendants will go unchallenged during the selection process - and after. They only need to corrupt or threaten the majority of the twelve selected for the jury...

But Nicholas Easter is an enigma. They can't find a reason to challenge his selection. He seems harmless. Apparently...

FYI, I smoked two packs of Kools a day, starting in 1972, quit in 1983. So, I was 'there' during the time when the tobacco companies fought and fought in court case after lawsuit after scientific study.

From Wikipedia:

"In the 1990s, plaintiffs began to have limited success in tobacco lawsuits, partly because some cigarette company documents were leaked showing the companies were aware of the addictive nature of tobacco. The first big win for plaintiffs in a tobacco lawsuit occurred in February 2000, when a California jury ordered Philip Morris to pay $51.5 million to a California smoker with inoperable lung cancer.

Around this time, more than 40 states sued the tobacco companies under state consumer protection and antitrust laws. These states argued that cigarettes contributed to health problems that triggered significant costs for public health systems. In these lawsuits, the tobacco companies could not use the defense that had proven so successful in lawsuits brought by individuals -- that the smoker was aware of the risks and decided to smoke anyway.

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/tobacco-litigation-history-and-development-32202.html


This novel was published in 1996 by a writer who is also a lawyer. I liked it. However, it is more of an eye-opening glimpse at some of the underhanded tactics well-funded corporations can employ to corrupt 'fair' trials decided by jury than it is an actual description of any actual trial. It is fast to read and satisfying for us ex- and current cigarette smokers! (But now also looking at you, future vaping smoker plaintiffs...)

After a string of pretty serious reads, I was in the mood for some pure pulp thriller action, so I looked for the first available one. And Runaway Jury, which I'd owned for a while now, popped up.

It did the trick, but I was really hoping for much more of a classic legal thriller. Something that would at least somewhat wow me with a legal whodunit, but it ended up being pretty vanilla.

This is my first Grisham novel, so maybe there are others that live up to the hype and made him such a big name, but for now Runaway Jury was just meh for me. No big twists and by the end I was just like, hmm...welp ok then. So, if that's the kind of glowing review you needed to jump into this, then go for it! Ha.