Elise R. Sanguinetti

During the pandemic, many plaintiffs’ attorneys have been concerned, even fearful, about potentially going to trial virtually, without being in the courtroom with the judge and jury.

Sanguinetti can assure them that virtual trials can go quite well. At the end of last year, she brought in a $1.37 million verdict in a personal injury trial conducted entirely — from jury selection through verdict — via Zoom.

Alameda County Superior Court Judge Stephen Pulido presided over the trial. Sanguinetti’s client was a college student who was walking with friends on campus when another student suddenly picked her up and began running. Then he tripped and fell on top of her, causing serious injuries to her shoulder, back and hip. DeWitt v. Jimenez, RG18909665 (Ala. Super. Ct, filed June 20, 2018).

Throughout the Zoom proceeding, Sanguinetti never saw a juror face to face. “I never even saw my trial team once in person,” she said.

Potential jurors did come to the courthouse on the day they were initially subpoenaed to appear, where they received questionnaires about themselves and their access to technology plus a guide to Zoom.

During voir dire, Sanguinetti interacted with 84 little talking heads on her computer screen, 60 at a time. “It was a little strange,” she acknowledged. “I would just drag and drop them into the order I knew they were coming up” for questioning.

The virtual approach had some advantages. Because many of the potential jurors were working from home, fewer claimed hardship or failed to appear.

Sanguinetti said she also liked the close view Zoom gave her of each panel member’s face, allowing her to see micro-expressions — exactly the opposite of questioning jurors in masks.

During the trial, the jurors seemed very engaged. “We were in pretty serious lockdown, and I think people were interested in doing something a little different,” she said.

Arranging for experts to testify also was much easier, she said. And of course the virtual trial was much less expensive for all concerned.

Sanguinetti had other success this past year, including a nearly $2.4 million settlement as co-lead counsel for the family of a man who committed suicide in custody at Alameda County’s large Santa Rita Jail. Masterson v. County of Alameda, 3:19-cv-01625, (N.D. Cal., filed March 28, 2019).

She is still litigating against Tesla Inc. for the family of a man who burned to death trapped in his car after it accelerated suddenly into a tree. McCarthy v. Tesla Inc., 19CV358560, (Sta. Clara Sup. Ct., filed Oct. 4, 2019).

Sanguinetti said she has spoken with other lawyers suing Tesla and all report similar, unusual litigation hurdles. “I have reason to believe that a lot of those hurdles are coming very much from the top,” she said.

And she is still helping people remove racist exclusionary language from their deeds and other property documents — including one person “very, very high up in the attorney general’s office.”

— Don DeBenedictis