A True Verdict by Robert Rotstein
Wednesday, January 15, 2025 at 8:11AM 
Published by Blackstone Publishing on January 14, 2025
A True Verdict milks the comedic side of people whose political viewpoints dictate their opinions about subjects that have nothing to do with politics. A discharged employee’s claim of whistleblower retaliation and race discrimination is turned upside down by the novel’s end. Robert Rotstein uses melodrama and silly plot twists to lighten the story, but by the end, sharply divided jurors share an aha moment and unite in a mutual desire for justice — whatever that turns out to be.
Told from multiple points of view, the story follows jury deliberations at the end of a civil trial. Most chapter narrators are jurors, although significant contributions are made by the lawyers, the judge, a judge’s law clerk, a lawyer’s assistant, and a blogger. Occasional excerpts from transcripts acquaint the reader with key trial testimony.
The plaintiff is Ellison Picard. Both his first and last names will be recognizable to science fiction fans. Picard is a young Black man with a spinal fracture that confines him to a wheelchair.
Picard worked for MediMiracle as a statistician. MediMiracle is a startup drug company that has developed only one product, but it will be revolutionary and extraordinarily profitable if it works. The company claims that the drug cures all addictions — drugs, alcohol, sex, whatever. If the product works, it will clearly save lives.
Picard claims he reviewed the drug’s post-approval testing data and discovered a life-endangering side effect that is disproportionately harmful to Black patients. He claims he blew the whistle, that he was fired for doing so, and that the company invented a story about his violent behavior to justify his discharge. He sued the company for race discrimination and for violating a law that protects whistleblowers.
The company claims it fired Picard because he attacked his employer’s CEO in the company’s lobby. Like many disputes that go to trial, the truth depends on which side’s witnesses the jury believes.
After a transcript excerpt sets the scene, the story begins with the eight jurors filing out of the courtroom. Picard’s lawyer, M. Bailey Klaus, introduces the reader to MediMiracle’s CEO and founder, Peyton Burke, “a Forbes Magazine billionaire, stylish, attractive, and not yet forty years old” who “doesn’t fear losing. What mega-rich sociopath does?”
The lawyer representing MediMiracle and Burke does fear losing. She worked under Klaus’ supervision at his former firm before she stole his clients. Her performance in the trial will either enhance or destroy her self-esteem, not to mention her continued employment if she costs her firm its biggest client.
We then meet a quirky group of jurors. Two will not last long after they are caught in an amusing violation of the rules governing juror fraternization. The remaining jurors are a veterinary technician, a scientist, a retiree who is fighting a losing battle against a lung disease, a cleaner who has been a naturalized citizen for two decades, a far-right furniture store owner, and a far-left editor. They disagree about everything, sometimes with colorful language. One juror sees Burke as an admirable role model for women while another regards her as an arrogant bitch.
The political opinions of the jurors who have any are exaggerated for comedic effect. Even funnier are the jurors who base their decisions on factors that are just as irrelevant as politics. The cleaner brings the most common sense and the least prejudice to the jury room.
Much of the story involves the bickering of jurors who initially have difficulties setting aside their preconceptions about the parties, the lawyers, and each other. Additional humor comes from the issues that sidetrack the jury. In my favorite example, a juror explains that facial expressions are indicative of lying by telling detailed stories about relatives or boyfriends who made those expressions.
The story touches upon serious questions of racial identity, racism, and corporate disregard of employees' rights. It uses those questions as a backdrop for humor, not to explore burning social issues. Some readers might find some of the humor to be offensive, but Robert Rotstein offends the left and right with equal vigor. Readers who relax and laugh at the parts they find funny will probably like the book in the end.
Subplots include Klaus’ misunderstanding of his assistant’s feelings about him and the law clerk’s hilarious attempts to influence the judge’s decisions in the case. They add to the story’s goofiness.
A True Verdict could be used to teach a course in small-group decision-making. Each juror has a different style. One is pushy. One is insecure. One is accusatory. One is timid. They have almost nothing in common except a desire to carry out a civic duty as best they can.
Will the jurors set aside their differences and dig through the evidence until they find something they can agree to be true? The story is too biting to be pollyannish, but it’s told with good humor. It pokes fun at people of all political persuasions while reflecting the hope that most people can overcome divisive issues and behave decently when it matters.
RECOMMENDED