Video transcript
I'm going to say something controversial. Even while I'm being taped, juries get it wrong a lot. That's my own opinion. I do only civil trials, personal injury cases, contract disputes. But I've had situations where I'm like, oh, my heaven's sake. How could they have thought that? Well, I have a tool that I can deal with that. It's called judgment notwithstanding the verdict. I can say there is no possible way that a reasonable jury would have reached that conclusion. And all right, am I following the law or am I making law? OK, I'm following law. I'm an impartial referee. But it's hard to factor out my own emotions. And I have tools somebody can say, well, Your Honor, you have to throw out this case because it's just like another case. Well, is it just like another case? What if the defendant was wearing a red sweater instead of a blue sweater? Oh, and by the way, I worked for the Columbia Daily Spectator for a couple of weeks. What happened was I went there every day. And I wrote a few stories, one I got criticized on because I wrote that some Ku Klux Klanners had murdered some people. And then I was told, you can't say that. How do we know? You weren't there. Well, that was what everybody thought. Anyway, yeah, we should have absolute immunity. What if we defame somebody? That's how it usually comes up. You call somebody a murderer or a heroin addict, that sort of thing, a pedophile. If it's done in court, yeah, I think we should have absolute immunity.
Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.