Behind the Scenes: Changing Lives Through Jury Deliberation

A federal jury awarded Olivia Lord approximately 1.2 million dollars after finding that Detective Thompson conducted a reckless investigation by charging Lord with the murder of her deceased boyfriend Michael Burnside. While some jurors are faced with watching lifeless civil trials, the jurors in this trial witnessed emotions running high on both sides. The foreperson on the civil jury opens up five years post-trial, making it clear that this experience will forever impact her life.

Background: 

•  Lord and her deceased boyfriend were the only ones at home when he was shot in the head. Lord told Detective Thompson that she was in the bathroom when it happened, then called 911.
• When a neighbor came forward with information, Thompson pressured him into statements so that he could use those in the Probable Cause Affidavit. Thompson also included things like Lord “fleeing” to California when she had pre-paid tickets and untrue information about blowback on her clothing.
•  The Grand Jury refused to indict Olivia Lord criminally.
• Lord hired prominent Civil Rights Attorney Don Tittle to sue the city of Dallas and Thompson for violating her civil rights and maliciously prosecuting her. 

The Trial:

•  Near the beginning trial, Tittle showed a video of Thompson interrogating Lord. The interrogation lasted for about six hours the night Burnside died. The video included the detective yelling “YOU SHOT HIM” at Lord and telling her she meant nothing to her deceased boyfriend. 
• The defense opened with the theme that Lord was still guilty; in closing, the defense looked at Lord and told her she was innocent. This caused Lord to cry, and visibly affected members of the jury. 

From the Jury Box:

            In a course at Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law on Police Misconduct Litigation, Olivia Lord and the foreperson of the civil jury (Judy) came to speak. Typically, in federal court the attorneys don’t get a chance to talk with members of the jury after the trial. In this case, Judge Barbara Lynn allowed voluntary contact after the trial because of how moved she was by the trial. Judy said that a few weeks after the trial she reached out to Lord; they have remained close friends since. Judy was initially appalled by the interrogation video, but as the trial went on she was more appalled by the many ways Thompson was deceitful in trying to obtain evidence against Lord. As for expert witnesses, she originally saw the medical examiner who testified against Thompson as a hero; however, throughout the years she explained how that has changed. Judy reflected on how the medical examiner changed his report solely based on Thompson’s word. Judy explained that their seven-person jury knew in about ten minutes that everyone was on Lord’s side. The main issue was figuring out the jury instructions and the word malice in particular. Another struggle was coming to a middle ground in awarding damages. Finally, Judy said none of the jurors believed Detective Thompson to be a credible witness.

For anyone being called to jury duty, just remember: at least one past juror still reflects on the case, built lasting friendships, had a sense of fulfilling a civic duty, and enjoyed comradery with fellow jurors. 

Author: Jamie-Lee Denton

Candidate for Juris Doctor, May 2019

SMU Dedman School of Law 

Connect with me!