
Quoting
CONNOR99
The big problem during your case here counselor is that even though you tried to weed out anyone with plumbing experience during your jury selection one person with over thirty years of toilet experience seemes to have found his way onto your jury. Also, since you tried to stack the jury with incompationate landlords, you didn't get any onto your jury. And when you say "we', you are only talking to your biased co-counsel and client...not to the jury.
A lawyer who tried to prepare himself for this case would only have a short time to get himself up to speed on the workings of a toilet. It would be much easier to confuse and mislead the jury in typical lawyer fashion while trying to discredit the tenant as a dishonest scumbag. But this one 'sleeper' juror knows that only about one half of a gallon can overflow without the float being defective. He also knows, and will educate the jury during deliberation, that a toilet cannot overflow unless it is flushed. It also cannot 'overflow' while nobody is home without there being integral plumbing issues.
So while you want to direct the jury to the testimony that fits your agenda, more was said by the tenant that you wish was not said. Also, your expert plumbing witness who took the stand and lied his a$$ off and could not be exposed by the tenant's attorney will be exposed by this juror.
So even though you entered evidence that this tenant has a record for hitting his girlfriend, smoking pot, drunk driving and suing a past landlord, you cannot get past the fact that a toilet is defective if it overflows by itself while nobody is home or if more than a half of gallon flows onto the floor.
My suggestion, next time do a better job of selecting your jury so they can be BS'd easier in typical lawyer fashion under typical courtroom restrictions.