The purpose of the American legal system, established by our founding fathers, is to ensure a just and orderly society while protecting civil liberties. While some may overlook or disregard its complexities, there are those who strive to understand it in order to support and advocate for individuals who may not fully comprehend the judicial process.
If these ideas are correct, using the truth and having a legal expert present would ensure the success of a court case and the delivery of justice to the responsible person. However, this is not usually the case in most situations. Proving the truth can be more difficult than simply stating “the evidence is true.” Jan Schlichtmann understands this well in his novel A Civil Action. In the story, Jan Schlichtmann, a young lawyer from Boston, along with his colleagues, agrees to take on the Woburn orphan case related to the Sick Children.
The argument presented was that J. J. Riley Tannery, owned by Beatrice Foods, and W. R. Grace Chemical Company were at fault for contaminating two wells, Wells G and H, in East Woburn with high levels of a potentially cancer-causing substance. However, proving the legal truth was challenging for Schlichtmann due to the absence of an unbiased legal system. In this particular case, the Woburn trial was marred by strategic maneuvering, deliberate sabotage, and a prejudiced favor towards the defendants, which ultimately hindered a favorable outcome for the plaintiff.
Jan Schlichtmann, Kevin Conway, and Bill Crowley found that failing to make a complaint against Beatrice Foods and W. R. Grace was the least challenging part. When complaints are filed, regardless of the case’s relevance or strength, a court review is required before proceeding. As an illustration, the court hears the grievance cases of the Woburn families in the presence of a judge. Defendants can then deliver opening statements or motion on the case at hand. This occurrence marks the beginning of strategic maneuvers in the story.
The defendant, W. G. Grace, represented by William Cheeseman of Foley, Hoag, and Eliot, files a motion to transfer the case to federal court. According to the book, Cheeseman is known for his ability to dismiss difficult lawsuits and Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure, which was established in 1938, was created to address frivolous and irresponsible lawsuits. Cheeseman’s objective is to have the case dismissed without a trial by moving it to U.S. District court. This strategy aims to avoid trial and any potential restitution payments if his company is found guilty. Judge Skinner’s bias towards civil cases is evident in his belief that there are many worthless cases clogging the federal docket and contributing to his heavy workload. The motion to transfer the case almost succeeded due to this bias.
The District Court could have dismissed the case if there was a motion for ‘Rule 11’ because of the judge’s bias regarding his caseload and his belief that more lawyers should utilize this rule. It is worth noting that Judge Skinner permitted the plaintiff to provide an oral argument explaining why the lawsuit was not frivolous. Unfortunately for Cheeseman, both his motion for “battery” and the rule 11 motion were dismissed as Jan Schlichtmann managed to outmaneuver him.
After reviewing the evidence gathered on the defendants, including medical evidence, geological evidence, and depositions, it appears that Jan Schlichtmann, Kevin Conway, and Bill Crowley have a strong chance of winning their case. Schlichtmann devised a strategic plan for the trial that he believes will guarantee success. In the initial phase of his plan, he successfully linked the contaminated wells to Beatrice Foods and W. G. Chemical with supporting evidence. However, his progress came to a halt.
Jerome Facher, a lawyer from the firm Hale and Door, is Beatrice Foods’ defense attorney. He has extensive experience in trials and establishes a good relationship with Judge Skinner. The “Watershed Conference” is a pivotal moment that highlights Judge Skinner’s lack of impartiality due to his long-standing and respectful association with Facher. Schlichtmann realizes this and limits the trial dates and evidence concerning the contaminated groundwater to prove his point.
Skinner becomes enraged and issues a warning to Mr. Schlichtmann, stating that if a certain event occurs again, he will handle it in a manner that will attract attention from the American Lawyer. This demonstrates how the absence of a fair system can impact the outcome, as having a judge in the trial who claims not to be biased or lacking objectivity due to his relationship with the lawyers involved in the cases. Schlichtmann later recalls the judge’s words, stating that he cannot allow Mr. Facher’s judgment to replace his own, although he typically holds it in high regard. This further reinforces Schlichtmann’s belief that the lack of objectivity played a role in ruining his case.
The defining moment for bias occurred when the judge instructed the jury to disregard any exhibits or evidence against Beatrice prior to 1968. This decision led to the exclusion of testimonies, such as Walter Day’s account of the Beatrice land being described as Death Valley. The judge deemed it irrelevant. However, this lack of objectivity and Facher’s motion hindered the revelation of the truth regarding the evidence against Beatrice Foods. (p. 367)
The judicial process disregards the account of illnesses and deaths before 1973, diminishing the importance of truth in these cases. By making these small motions, defense attorneys can successfully have many cases dismissed by treating the judicial process as a game. This allows guilty parties to escape justice and victimizes plaintiffs within the legal system.
