First jury trial with jurors asking questions.... - Mark P. Loftus

September 26, 2025

As of July 1, 2012, under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 243, jurors are allowed to ask questions of witnesses at civil trial in Illinois. I just completed a short jury trial about 10 days ago where I had a very inquisitive jury – they asked LOTS of questions. The whole process went fairly smoothly, in part because the trial judge had a very practical and efficient method by which he incorporated the questions. After each witness had completed direct and cross, the jury would be asked, in open court, if there were any questions. If there were questions, the jury was directed back to the jury room and instructed to write out the questions and give them to the sheriff. The sheriff then conveyed them to the judge who would read them into the record and ask for objections. If objections were made[and there were few] they were quickly ruled upon. Of approximately 20 questions, only a couple were tossed – primarily because they were phrased in such a manner that they didn’t make much sense. The trial judge[correctly] didn’t feel he had an obligation to get into a back and forth with a juror about what he or she was trying to ask.

Once the court had read the question and given counsel and opportunity to be heard, he would then reconvene the jury and ask the witness the questions. And the questions were good ones – usually inquiring about small, yet significant facts myself or my opponent had managed to overlook. This jury clearly was engaged and paying close attention to the testimony. And the process provides some early helpful insights. If the jury wants an important [i.e. helpful] fact you have omitted with earlier witnesses – be sure to elicit evidence on the issue with a later witness[assuming appropriate disclosure of course]. Probably wouldn’t hurt to work those facts into your closing as well. If the questions are inquiring about a fact that is not terribly helpful, hope like hell that your opponent is a dullard and doesn’t pick up on it. And if he or she does pick up on it, some quick thinking might be necessary to defuse the impact. As an old boss used to say, it it was easy, anyone could do it.

Lastly, Rule 243 gives lawyers some early insight into which jurors might be leading discussions after closing – and who might be sitting in the foreperson seat when the verdict is read. In my case one particular juror made sure to sit in the front row near the witness box each day[this judge let jurors sit where they pleased]. She would be the first person to raise her hand when the judge asked about questions. Before long, it appeared the other jurors deferred to her about questions. I wasn’t surprised when she took the foreperson seat after a verdict had been reached. Another jury coming up next month – I am hopeful things work as smoothly….

Red Tesla sedan driving on a road.
September 26, 2025
According to online reports, Tesla ignored a $60 million dollar settlement overture in the wrongful death case that ultimately resulted in a $242 million dollar jury verdict against the car maker. The lawsuit grew out of 2019 crash where a Tesla Model S with Autopilot engaged, plowed through a Florida intersection and crashed into a Chevy Tahoe. Neima Benavides Leon and her boyfriend, Dillon Angulo were standing near the Tahoe when the Tesla crashed into it. Leon was killed and Angulo suffered serious injuries. A lawsuit was filed against Tesla, asserting that although the Autopilot feature was engaged, the vehicle did not brake. Florida law permits a monetary demand to be issued before trial. If the defendant fails to accept the demand within 30 days it is considered rejected. If the plaintiff then goes to trial and secures a verdict 25% greater than the offer, the defendant is on the hook for plaintiff’s investigative expenses and attorneys’ fees. Tesla is appealing the jury verdict, citing “substantial errors of law and irregularities at trial.”.
Johnson's baby powder container, white bottle, blue text, red seal, 400g.
September 26, 2025
This important ruling got kind of lost in the news cycle. A couple weeks ago, the United States Supreme Court refused to vacate a $2.2 billion dollar ovarian cancer verdict against Johnson & Johnson[“J & J”]. The verdict was originally returned by a Missouri jury in 2018 on behalf of 22 women. The original verdict was actually $4.7 billion but a Missouri Appellate Court reduced the award to $2 billion. Each of the women claimed that there was asbestos and asbestos-laced talc in J & J talcum powder products they used, and they developed ovarian cancer as a result. Asbestos is known to cause cancer. Talc, in its raw form is often found in close proximity to naturally occurring asbestos. When J & J mined talc, that talc sometimes contained asbestos. And that asbestos sometimes found its way into J & J personal hygiene products. [In 2019, J & J recalled 33,000 bottles of J & J products after FDA testing found asbestos in test samples]. J & J, has known of the risk of asbestos contamination in talc products since the 1970’s. Some 21,000 plus ovarian cancer cases are pending against J & J throughout the United States.
Movie poster for
September 26, 2025
Reports today say that DuPont and the State of New Jersey have reached a $2 Billion dollar settlement arising out of DuPont’s release of “forever chemicals” into soil, wetlands and other areas in New Jersey – and then forgetting to clean up the mess they made. The settlement with DuPont is reportedly the largest environmental settlement ever obtained by a state. “Forever chemicals” – also known as PFAS(referring to per and polyfluoroalkyl substances) are man-made chemicals that are used in an extensive variety of products as they are both water and grease-resistant. The chemicals are linked to litany of health problems, including increased risk of certain cancers(kidney, testicular and breast) liver damage, thyroid issues and reproductive problems(such as decreased fertility, low birthweight and developmental problems). NJ.Com is reporting that one of the sites where DuPont created munitions created such significant contamination in the environment that over 300 homes required filters to prevent toxic chemicals from seeping into their homes. The settlement terms provide that DuPont will spend $875 millions cleaning up the contamination and set aside another $125 million to cover other damages that may arise. Additionally, DuPont will also set p a $1.2 billion funding source and reserve fund of $475 million to ensure that even if the company fails to make payments, or goes bankrupt, public funds will not be used. For a stark introduction into the nature of PFAS, check out Dark Waters, a compelling and criminally underrated movie based on the decades old fight waged by attorney Robert Bilott against DuPont for contaminating West Virginia rural communities.