Woman: (very softly) Better move fast Di, because if you’re thirty-nine I’m the queen of Sheba.

Diane: What we have here is a typical situation. Like that black lawyer, Reynolds, kept saying, “He’s a chiseler.” That bastard Mike oppressed Lindy Markov for years. First, he chained her to him. Then, when he got what he wanted out of her, he dumped her.

She should have protected herself better. She counted on him to take care of her and that was her big mistake. That leaves us to go in and even things up for her.

Cliff: Susan?

Mrs. Lim: Please, If you don’t mind, I prefer Mrs. Lim.

Cliff: Go ahead, Mrs. Lim.

Mrs. Lim: My business is selling houses. I’m a real-estate broker in addition to a realtor. Married to Mr. Lim for twenty-three years, and I have two grown children.

I voted for Lindy Markov. You know, when you’re listening carefully, you can’t help noticing how people feel up there when they are testifying. I saw her cry. I saw Mike Markov suffering, too. But what we need to look at in a case like this is very simple. We examine the evidence. The judge told us to figure out the “effect and value of the evidence,” and to decide questions of fact, so that’s what we should do.

Bob: If you look at the evidence, how can you in good conscience vote in her favor? What about the agreement?

Mrs. Lim: That’s a good example. Not all the evidence can be taken at face value. Remember in the instructions that a valid contract requires a lawful objective and sufficient consideration. The consideration must have some value. They had no money, nothing, then. She was given nothing in return for signing away all her rights for eternity.

Diane: Why would she sign a paper like that anyway unless he forced her somehow or promised her something? It doesn’t make sense.

Frank: She felt he was losing interest in her. She held on as hard as she could. See a woman alone in this society is going to suffer. They’re going to be poorer. They lose all prestige. Doesn’t mean he forced her.

Diane: That’s just ridiculous and insulting. She may have been stupid to sign, but let me remind you, she said he promised to marry her if she signed. Since he didn’t marry her, its unenforceable. Guess that means she deserves at least some of their company.

Kevin: Even if you believe she told the truth, and even if you believe that agreement wasn’t valid, it laid out the terms for both to see. How can she claim she didn’t know that was their understanding if she signed that paper?

Diane: She signed to help him deal with his insecurities. Just like every good woman since time began, she bent over backward to support someone weaker. She never took it seriously. Why should she? There was no money involved at that point.

Cliff: Sonny? Got anything to add?

Sonny: No. Let’s just get this over with.

Cliff: Okay, then. That’s all of us. I’ll keep my spiel short, so we can move on to discussion. I’m forty-five. Married for twelve years, very recently separated, unfortunately. I consider myself to be a feminist. Most of you already know, I served in the state assembly a couple of years back. I’m campaign manager for a congressman at the moment, but I’m thinking about running again this November. I spent a few years in my twenties in law school, then worked as a paralegal and decided to go into politics instead and dropped out.

Bob: Everyone knows you don’t need an education for that.

Everyone laughs.

Cliff: That’s right. So believe me, I don’t think I know more than anyone else here. We all heard the same evidence.

Like several of you, I found the arguments for Lindy’s claim very persuasive. And I agree, there does seem to be plenty of money. If we were only interested in fairness, she should get something, for sure. I support a lot of liberal causes, including equal pay for women, and even poor old affirmative action.

But here, our focus has to be the law as it stands today, not how we want it to stand. And nowhere in California law is there financial provision for a woman who is not legally married to a man. There isn’t even a reference to so-called palimony. The only exception might be on a local level, where what they call domestic partners are covered by insurers in San Francisco, and maybe some other cities.

Frank: How do you know that?

Cliff: I just knew, but to verify it, I checked some of my old books.

Mrs. Lim: Didn’t the judge say not to do any research on our own?

Cliff: I looked it up before he gave us his instructions. And anyway, as I’ve said, I didn’t find anything at all about palimony, which should tell you something about how off-the-wall her claim is.

Based on the law, in my opinion, we can’t give her anything. I wish I could say different. But you know, Mike Markov said he would take care of her. He doesn’t have to, under the law. But I believe he will.

Diane: What happens five years down the line when he’s got a passel of kids and Lindy is just a grim memory?

Cliff: Well, you can hate men and never trust them. But I think most people try to live up to their obligations.

Diane: That’s just bullshit! He’ll toss a few coins at her and feel he’s done his duty. No, it’s up to us to force him to do the right thing.

Maribel: Well, you know Cliff’s got a point there, and I have to admit I liked what Kevin said, too. We’re supposed to follow the law. And just because the man has money, doesn’t necessarily mean she should get some.

Diane: I don’t believe this. You’re going to pull a switcheroo, aren’t you? Two minutes listening to the men, and you change your mind.

Maribel: I have a right to change my opinion after listening to other people speak. The judge said so.

Diane: Some women will do and say anything for a lick of male attention.

Maribel: Oh, what would you know about male attention? Didn’t your mother ever tip you off about the connection between too much sun and wrinkles?

Cliff: Please, ladies, ladies.

Diane: Please, men, men. Quit calling us ladies.

Cliff: What would you prefer?

Maribel: “Lady” fits some of us here.

Cliff: Enough, people. Let’s get back to work. I guess the next step is to work through the testimony and see if we can firm up our opinions, and do this quickly as possible. I know everyone is eager to do the parties in this case justice, and get out of here!

Now, before we move on, just to remind you all, our two alternate jurors are Patti Zobel and Damian Peck. They’ll be listening in on our discussion here, but they don’t participate. So let’s give them a lot to think about.

Kevin: I got something on my mind right now.

Cliff: What’s that, Kevin?

Kevin: How do they handle lunch around here? I’m starving.

›Click‹

24

›Click‹

Jury, Day One, Afternoon:

Wright: Let’s get to work. Now who wants to go first?

Kevin: Who decided on lunch? Fast food gives me indigestion.

Bob: You certainly gave a good imitation of a man enjoying his meal.

Kevin: Look who’s talkin’.

Maribel: You never eat anything, Cliff. We’re all snacking like crazy here, then we scarf lunch. Wish I had your self-control.

Cliff: It’s nothing to do with discipline. I just have some strict dietary requirements.

Frank: A vegetarian? That’s the only way to go. Wish I could stick to it.

Cliff: Well, yes. Also, I have bad allergies.

Courtney: I can’t eat garlic. Or if I do, you all better take ten steps back!

Cliff: This is more severe.

Courtney: What can’t you eat?

Cliff: Fresh apples, if you can believe that. Now, here’s something strange. That particular food allergy can be seasonal.

Frank: Are you serious? I’ve never heard of that.

Cliff: I’ve done a lot of research, believe me. When I eat uncooked apples my throat swells. I can’t breathe. It could kill me.