Mr. Michael Kealey:

The Senator is correct that there is no guarantee a judge will get it right. As a general rule, 50% of the people who are involved in the trial are upset whenever the judge makes a decision. There is no guarantee the jury will get it right either. The difference, however, is that one at least knows why the judge has made the decision. The judge is obliged to set out his reasons. He is obliged to indicate why he has reached a particular decision. One can then look at that and determine whether one wants to appeal that decision. It is difficult to do that in a case involving a jury. One simply does not know how or why it reached the decision. Unfortunately, the position, certainly in defamation cases from my experience, does not work for both sides. I have seen cases where plaintiffs have had very good cases and the juries just do not like them, for whatever reason. It is not legal; it is just that they have "taken agin them", if I can put it that way. I obviously will not mention names, but there are cases with politicians. Of course, there are people who will come before juries making a determination on a case involving a politician and those people either disagree with all politicians or with the particular politician's point of view, but we will never know that. We want reasoned, transparent decisions and the best way to have that is to have a judge make them.