Positive 9s and 10s.
The jury, Jack sees, is 'happy.'
Jack hears Herlihy mutter, 'I'm glad that son of a bitch is on our side.'
'It's the standard Paul Gordon opening,' Reinhardt says. 'Just fill in the blanks.'
'Shit.'
Emily Peters, one of Casey's partners, gets up to respond.
'Go, Emily,' Jack whispers.
'It's not easy, following that kind of speech,' she says. 'That was a great speech, a real tearjerker, a real appeal to your emotions. But ladies and gentlemen, a lawsuit should not be decided by emotions, it should be decided by the law and by the facts. And the law says that if a person burns down his own property, the insurance company cannot — by law — cannot pay that claim. And when you listen to the two witnesses that I will bring on, ladies and gentlemen, I am confident that you will recognize that, sadly, those are the facts.'
Maybe yes, maybe no, Jack sees. The monitor is hovering around a lot of Neutrals, a few 1s and 2s on either side of the line. The jury doesn't 'like' Emily as much as they do Tom.
She goes on anyway. 'Mr. White, as we're calling him, is rather like the man who murders his parents and then asks for mercy because he's an orphan-'
Not a laugh or a murmur or a chuckle from the jury. Uh-oh, Jack thinks, they're pissed at us already.
Yup, Negative 4s and 5s.
'— because that is the sad fact of this case.
'Now, my esteemed colleague, Mr. Casey, has told you — correctly — that the authorities ruled the fire an accident and the death an accident. That is true. What he didn't tell you is that those findings are not binding upon an insurance company. Great Western doesn't think itself above the law. The law states that an insurance company has the right, indeed the obligation, to independently investigate a claim and render its own decision. And the law further states that the insurance company may deny a claim if it reasonably concludes that it was 'more likely than not' that an insured set fire to his own property.
'That is the law — 'more likely than not' — and when you hear our witnesses, and carefully consider the facts that they present, I am confident that you will also conclude that it is far more likely than not that Mr. White is an arsonist and a murderer. And that far from awarding the millions of dollars that he is asking for, you will be asking, 'Why isn't this man in prison? Why isn't he the defendant in this trial?'
'Now, Mr. Casey asked you to send a message.
'So do I.
'Send a message that you are not going to be swayed by cheap dramatics. You are not going to be swayed by emotion. That you are instead going to consider the facts and send the message that, far from being rewarded, Mr. White should be charged, convicted, and punished.
'Thank you.'
As the jury starts filling out their questionnaires, Jack hears Reinhardt say, 'She came out too strong.'
'I liked it,' Herlihy says.
It was strong, Jack thinks, but that's what she had to do. You come out half-assed in an arson trial, all you do is get your half-ass totally kicked.
Jack sees the TSI consultants typing like mad. Typing and waiting like vultures for the responses to the opening statements to come in. Jack knows that the responses are key: if Casey 'wins' the opening, it's going to be damn hard to convince the jury otherwise. The TSI people would say that 80 percent of jurors have their minds made up after the opening statements.
It's also going to be damn hard to convince Mahogany Row not to settle.
The jury finishes writing and one of the consultants rushes in to get their papers.
Peters says, 'Calling to the stand Mr. Smith.'
Which is me, Jack thinks.
Now Jack's in an interesting position here.
If he goes in there and does a good job and wins, Sandra Hansen drops the hammer on him.
If he goes in there and does a bad job and loses, then he gets to keep his job but Nicky Vale gets away with arson and murder.
Sort of your basic dilemma.
87
He walks in a Negative 7.
He can't see that, of course, but Jack can look into the jury's eyes and know they already don't like him.
It's one thing to look at a 'jury' — even a focus group panel — from behind a one-way mirror. It's a whole different deal, Jack thinks, to be eyeball to eyeball with them, them staring at you like you're some sort of zoo animal.
A bad animal.
Anyway, he does his best to do what Peters advised him: Make eye contact, speak a little slow and a little loud, and answer the questions directly. Be calm, be cool, be confident.
Right, Jack thinks. Even as he sits down he can feel the sweat starting to bead on his forehead.
And Mallon staring at him.
Like, I've seen you before.
A long time ago, Judge, in a galaxy far, far away…
Peters starts him off with his background, his education, his experience level.
Then asks, 'And how many fire claims would you say you've handled for Great Western?'
'I would estimate hundreds.'
'As many as a thousand?'
'That's possible.'
'And of that thousand,' she asks, 'how many were eventually denied for arson?'
'Very few.'
'Can you give me a number?'
'A handful. Nine, ten.'
'It's rare, isn't it?'
'Objection. Leading.'
'Sustained.'
'Could you give us an idea,' Peters asks, 'of the frequency of arson denials?'
'It's rare.'
A low chuckle from the jury.
'Is it difficult to prove arson by an insured?'
'It can be.'
'Why?'
'Arson is a crime that consumes its own evidence,' Jack says. 'It's also a crime in which the perpetrator tends to leave the scene before the event… for obvious reasons.'
Jack feels himself flush because he used the word 'crime' not once but twice — a supposed no-no in civil arson litigation, but then he thinks, Fuck it, I can't play for a tie here.
'Well,' Peters says, 'how do you prove arson by an insured?'
'As I understand the law,' Jack says, 'you need three elements: incendiary origin, motive, and opportunity.'
She takes him through the meaning of the Tripartite Proof, then asks him, 'Did you conclude that the White fire was of incendiary origin?'
'Yes, I did.'
'What led you to that conclusion?'
'A number of things.'
