A Juror Speaks Out: More on Bixby v KBR

A follow up  on a recent post. Our story so far:  Judge Papak issued a comprehensive 63-page opinion on Friday affirming the jury verdict in favor of 12 Oregon Army National Guard veterans against KBR. The men were injured by sodium dichromate contamination, while providing security at a KBR work site, the Qarmat Ali Water Treatment Plant, in Iraq in 2003.  My work on the team representing the veterans has consumed a good part of my professional life.

Under the rules that govern the conduct of Oregon lawyers, I am not allowed to approach jurors and ask them for feedback on their service in a case I have tried. The rule exists for good reasons. We don’t want lawyers to be able to use jurors’ statements to undermine verdicts, and we never want to add additional burden to the difficult duty of serving on a jury. The rule is straightforward: We can talk if a juror initiates contact but cannot contact jurors.

That said, I am always incredibly interested in what jurors think. (Most every trial lawyer is, so in that regard I’m not special.)

That’s why I found this follow up news report so exciting. Mike Francis, The Oregonian reporter, is not under the same restrictions. He can ask jurors for feedback and comments after the trial, and he got a response from Ken Howe, the presiding juror.

Very cool to hear Mr. Howe’s take. I was initially blown away to read that Mr. Howe had gotten a copy of the opinion and read it over the weekend. Then I was appreciative all over again of how hard this jury worked.

While there is a lot of law in the opinion–that’s required with what we do–Judge Papak’s  opinion focuses on the evidence in detail. From  The Oregonian, it appears that Mr. Howe and Judge Papak viewed the evidence in similar fashion.

As Mike Francis reports, Mr. Howe explained:

“‘His [Judge Papak’s] analysis of the evidence closely echoed our discussions during deliberations,” *** “Not being trained in the legal profession, I don’t fully understand the reduction of the non-economic damages award, but I was pleased to see that Judge Papak let the punitive damages stand — another confirmation of our verdict.'”

As Mike Francis noted:

“Papak’s opinion amounts to a point-by-point refutation of KBR’s legal arguments during the trial.”

There are many reasons why this case is important. There are many pieces to this big story that will be told for a while and remembered for the rest of our lives. That said, every hour, every sleepless night, every worry has been worthwhile for these veterans. When our system of justice works, it is a sweet thing.

I’m sure the jurors who served know that the veterans, and those of us who served as counsel, stand in awe. Their service, too, is a huge part of this story. It’s one I imagine I’ll never get to hear or tell, but that’s the life of a trial lawyer.

-David Sugerman

2 thoughts on “A Juror Speaks Out: More on Bixby v KBR

  1. Why did Judge Papak allow this complaint to be litigated in the Oregon District Court when it has no jurisdiction over KBR, a foreign Texas company, with no office or presence in Oregon? The incident happened in Iraq which is outside the Oregon territory. What argument(s) did the Oregon soldiers’ present to win the personal and specific jurisdiction of the Court over KBR?

  2. Gosh. It almost sounds like you are using KBR talking points right there. Judge Papak faithfully applied US Supreme Court case law, from the Calder case. He was correct. KBR benefitted from security provided through the Oregon military department, which is part of the State of Oregon. And then KBR misled the Vets about the toxic condition of Qarmat Ali knowing full well that the Vets would come home sick. When a defendant purposely avails itself of the benefits of a state, it creates personal jurisdiction for the harm it causes. Bottom line: KBR chose. It should not now whine.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *