Considering that the Camp Lejeune water contamination was a tragedy of historical proportions, one would expect justice to be speedily served. However, timely justice is not the hallmark of the Federal government (perhaps could be in a fairer world!).
The North Carolina Camp’s victims lived in the dark for over three sad decades. Even after volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were discovered in the Base’s waters, no action was taken for three more years. Finally, the three contaminated tanks – Hadnot Point, Holcomb Boulevard, and Tarawa Terrace – were shut down in 1985.
During the initial years of the 21st century, victims were only offered free healthcare (mainly under Obama’s administration). However, 2022 came as the light at the end of the lonely tunnel of the quest for justice.
Today, the ebb and flow process continues as veterans and their families are still struggling for compensation. In this article, we will discuss the plaintiffs’ harrowing struggles in detail.
Contents
The Purpose of the Camp Lejeune Legislative Process
In the years that followed the discovery of the Camp’s polluted waters, cases of severe injuries were reported. TorHoerman Law states that victims mostly suffered from life-threatening conditions like a range of cancers, Parkinson’s disease, birth defects, multiple myeloma, aplastic anemia, etc.
Did nobody attempt to sue the government for the Navy’s negligence in the matter? Many did, but they were never fruitful due to the Federal government’s sovereignty in court. In other words, no one has the right to sue the government unless they are granted it.
The Federal Tort Claims Act of 1946 made no provisions that could support the cause of Camp Lejeune’s victims. This is why the Camp Lejeune Justice Act (CLJA) had to be officially passed in August 2022.
The Bill declared that the government would lay down its sovereignty so that victims could receive fair Camp Lejeune water contamination settlement amounts. First, victims were required to file an administrative claim. If the Navy failed to provide a resolution within six months, a lawsuit could be filed in court.
The Act also provided a separate statute of limitations (filing window) of two years from the date of official signing. This means victims have time only till August 2024 to file an administrative claim for justice.
After several excuses and a counterproductive elective option later, plaintiffs have prepared themselves for Bellwether trials. Shockingly, the Navy filed a motion to block a jury trial (a method for fair compensation and peaceful resolution). The plaintiff’s counsel sees this as another attempt to avoid paying fair settlements.
Why the Need for a Jury Trial and Its Procedure
If the Navy has attempted to block a jury trial, this means the procedure does hold the potential to turn the tables in the plaintiffs’ favor. Let’s look at the process of a trial to better understand the government’s ulterior motives.
It all starts with ‘voir dire’ or the process of selecting the jurors for the trial. The judge and the attorneys (from both sides) are involved in the jury selection process. The panel is chosen based on their knowledge, ideological predispositions, personal experiences, etc.
Once the jury is selected, the trial procedure may finally begin.
Opening Statements
The dialogue in a jury trial begins with both parties presenting their opening statements. The plaintiff’s attorney is generally the one to initiate the process. This is because the burden of proving the defendant’s legal liability in the case sits on the plaintiff’s shoulders.
At this stage, no witness statements or evidence is needed. The plaintiff’s counsel will lay down all the facts of the Camp Lejeune incident and the defendant’s alleged role in the plaintiff’s injuries. Once done, the defendant’s attorney will make counter statements based on their interpretation of the facts.
Witness Testimonies and Cross-Examination
This stage of a jury trial involves the case-in-chief. In other words, both parties must show key evidence and witness testimonies to prove their points. What would that look like in context? The Camp Lejeune plaintiff attorney will present evidence supporting the plaintiff’s injuries (say, medical records and bills).
The aim here is to strengthen the case in the plaintiff’s favor. Even medical practitioners may be asked to take the witness stand. Then, the defendant’s attorney will be allowed to ‘cross-examine’ the witness and evidence provided. The aim was to poke holes in the plaintiff’s story and attack their credibility.
Closing Arguments
After key evidence and cross-examination, both parties have the chance to ‘rest.’ Now comes the time for the closing arguments. Much like the opening statements, this stage allows both parties to sum up the case.
This means each party will provide a gist for their arguments in a way that is most favorable to their position. At this stage, no party presents any new evidence. This is each party’s final chance to convince the jurors of their credibility before deliberations are made.
Jury Instruction
Once both parties have presented their witness testimonies, key evidence, and closing arguments, the next stage involves jury instruction. Here, the judge will lay down certain legal standards that the jurors must adhere to before deciding the defendant’s guilt.
The legal standards the judge sets will depend on the evidence presented and an individual case’s personal injury claims.
Jury Deliberation and Verdict
After the jury has received instructions from the presiding judge, the case passes through what is known as ‘deliberation.’ The jury will collectively decide whether the defendant is guilty of the alleged claims along with the fair compensation.
Deliberation is the jury’s first opportunity for case discussion. This stage may take anywhere from a few hours to a few weeks. Once a unanimous decision is reached, the jury foreperson informs the judge, who then gives the final verdict.
In case the jury is unable to reach a final verdict, the judge may declare a ‘mistrial.’ If this happens, the case may be dismissed or a new trial may be held starting right from the jury selection stage.
Ultimately, we see that the jury trial process plays a key role in ensuring fair compensation for the plaintiffs. There may be viewpoints that the judge could overlook which the jury can identify. A jury trial is a peaceful way to settle a legal case.
This makes perfect sense as to why the government is against such a trial for Camp Lejeune victims. Meanwhile, the plaintiff’s counsel is hoping that the court finds such a motion to be ridiculous. This way, the jurors’ personal experiences and knowledge would offer the plaintiffs the justice they deserve.
