As a Plaintiff's attorney, I never stop learning and am never surprised by what I hear from the jurors following a trial.  I recently learned that not only do I need to question the prospective jurors about tort reform, but I have to question them about their ability to only judge the evidence and the facts relating to that evidence.  This might seem rather easy to apply, but there are times when jurors fail to judge only the fact.  I find that they tend to speculate or wander off on tangents in the deliberation room.  I now have to remind them not to speculate as to what certain evidence may mean when there are no facts supporting its meaning.  I try to remind them that "if there are no facts offered into evidence, then they should not speculate" as to what for example is meant by a certain mark on a document or why something remains connected to a vehicle. In a recent trial, it was frustrating to learn that the jurors spent many hours deliberating over material where there was no evidence to explain a certain mark on a writing.    It turned out that the marking was simply a mistake by the billing department.   Unfortunately, the jurors thought it was appropriate to speculate as to the meaning of the mark rather then simply ignore it. Given that many judges today give counsel limited time in which to question jurors, these two areas, 1) tort reform and 2) jurors giving weight only to the facts applied to the evidence must be covered in every trial. If you, family member, or a friend has been involved in a catastrophic accident feel free to call me.  My information is found by clicking here.