Is there a state Supreme Court that serves as a 'rubber stamp' for powerful corporate entities? Looks like it, I simply say thank God it is not Missouri. But we best come to the aid of our of our brothers and sisters elsewhere to make sure it doesn't happen at home!
This is a jawdropping story which provides the facts of what the Courts are doing in Mississippi to remove the power of the people. Juries are the basic bottom line source of justice in our government. When judges ignore juries, the voices of "the people" are being silenced. This is something that outrages me.
Attorney Alex A. Alston Jr. has litigated hundreds of cases, primarily for defendant corporations, over the past 44 years, including scores of cases argued before the Mississippi Supreme Court, and he has written an article that I find almost too much to believe.
Mr. Alston says the following:
If you are a victim of personal injury, malpractice or corporate fraud, you have almost no chance of having a jury verdict in your favor affirmed by the state Supreme Court.
In the past, the Supreme Court rarely overturned a jury verdict, especially if it was based on a dispute over a factual issue. That day is gone. During the past 4 1/2 years, according to my research, an astonishing 88 percent of all jury verdicts in favor of the wronged victims have been reversed by the state Supreme Court.
But what about the jury trials won by defendants, in which the victim takes an appeal to correct an error? Here, again, the numbers are staggering.
Over the same 4 1/2-year-period, a plaintiff's success rate in reversing a jury verdict for the defendant is an astonishing zero.
The defendant corporation, hospital, or insurance company prevailed in 100 percent of these cases. It is difficult to imagine victims of negligence and fraud losing 100 percent of the time, but that is the way it is in the state Supreme Court in a plaintiff's appeal.
How can it be that during the last 4 1/2 years powerful corporations, hospitals, and insurance companies have prevailed in the state Supreme Court in nearly every case? Can an injured plaintiff ever be right?
Perhaps it is because we elect our Supreme Court justices. In the 2002 election, insurance companies, large corporations, and doctors poured millions of dollars into the campaign coffers of most of the justices. One of the new judges that year alone received over a million dollars from these sources.
Can anyone truly doubt that judges will, either consciously or unconsciously, favor those who have contributed substantially to their campaigns.
In the upcoming election, large corporations, which statistically are more likely to be named as defendants, will not forget those justices who ruled in their favor against an injured or defrauded plaintiff, and no doubt substantial contributions will flow to these faithful.
Is there anything we can do? Yes, we can get involved in the election.
The sole purpose of the Supreme Court is to determine whether the defendant received a fair and impartial trial in the lower courts.
Our entire judicial system is built on a "rule of law." In other words, it makes no difference whether you are a prince or a pauper, the law must be precisely the same for all.
A court that substitutes its opinion for that of a jury, or simply decides a case for the benefit of a favored party, tears the basic fabric of our judicial system to shreds. If the rule of law is not followed, the entire foundation of our judicial system is undermined.
The public has a right to expect the Supreme Court to follow the rule of law and decide the cases before it fairly and impartially without favor to any party regardless of status, race, creed or color.
Should we not demand that each of them follow the rule of law?
Our court must be more than a rubber stamp for the rich and powerful.
Shouldn't we expect that and more?
