Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Civil action procedure
A civil action analysis
Civil action procedure
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Civil action procedure
Jonathan Harr wrote a compelling novel, called A Civil Action, on the actual events of a thrilling court case involving two major corporations and the families who were affected greatly. In Woburn, Massachusetts there were twenty-eight children who contracted acute lymphocytic leukemia between the years of 1964 and 1986. The explanation for the contraction of the disease and even the death of some of the children was discovered in the water; two municipal wells near the town were found to be contaminated with toxic chemicals. Eight families filed suit against W.R. Grace & Co. and Beatrice Foods Inc., accusing them for the contamination of the wells and the death of their children. The families only wanted an apology and the truth but when the case began, discovering the truth became difficult. One prevalent theme found throughout the book is the conflict between finding the truth and the judicial process. The two are almost always incompatible with each other in the courtroom, and A Civil Action illustrates that quite well. The fight for the truth was taken over by trial tactics used by the defendant, whose goal was to keep the truth from getting out. It is natural for the plaintiff and the defendant to use tactics to create the verdict rather than using the facts of the case because both aim for success. Misinformation, partial truths, and hidden facts are common in the courtroom and one scene of A Civil Action shows how it can change the whole trial. People of the courtroom can manipulate the trial so the odds are in their favor. Rarely is truth ever the main focus. The courtroom is not used for finding out the truth. It is used for power and gaining riches. Jerome Facher, a defendant in the Woburn case for Grace, was good wi... ... middle of paper ... ...cleanup of the contaminated went underway, proving that with a long, painstaking process, truth can be found. Even though the judicial process had gotten in the way and extended the longevity of the trial, it was all worth it in the end. In conclusion, finding out the truth, the facts, and the goal of justice should be the main purpose of any civil case. Sadly, the judicial process gets in the way. The legal system becomes unjust and in some cases, justice is never served. Seeing the story unfold and reading about the struggle between wealth and power and justice is exciting, yet saddening. The book matters and should be read by all, from people who are studying the legal system to people who are not. It is an emotional and engaging book. It can’t be forgotten. One man can make the biggest difference and finding the truth is much more fulfilling than any riches.
Pagan writes a captivating story mingled with the challenges of the Eastern Shore legal system. This book gives a complete explanation backed up by research and similar cases as evidence of the ever-changing legal system. It should be a required reading for a history or law student.
Locallo describes the Bridgeport case as being a “heater case”, not only because of the social impact that it will create in the community, but also because of all the media attention it will receive which will influence his possible reelection once his term is over (Courtroom 302, 31). When Frank Caruso Jr. decided that he was going to beat Lenard Clark, an African American boy he created the spark that society needed to get back at the Caruso family for all of the crimes that they got away with in the past. During the past several decades, society has tried to make the Caruso family take responsibility for their crimes, but all those efforts just strengthened the family ties and political positions.
Returning to the judicial world of the Bronx Family Court as a judge, after years of working in administration, Judge Richard Ross is astonished to find a distinctly more disjointed situation than the one he left. As he attempts to live out his life as “both the fact finder and arbiter of the law” it is clear the current judicial system does not serve him well (xv). Judge Ross conveys to the reader the fundamental issues of the Family Court system through his day to day happenings which range from endless caseloads to death threats. The use of personal experience is effective in adding credibility to more clearly convey his point that not only the Judges, but the case workers, 18-B attorneys, and various legal aides are overworked to a point
Robinson trial; (2) prejustice and its effects on the processes of the law and society; (3)
Kassin, Saul, and Lawrence Wrightsman (Eds.). The Psychology of Evidence and Trial Procedure. Chapter 3. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1985. Print.
...r as if they were in the courtroom of a murder trial. In some ways, the use of advanced diction could cause problems for the reader to comprehend it, however the author has worked in small descriptions of what some of the more advanced judiciary terms are. Finally, the author uses a very advanced characterization of virtually all the characters mentioned within the story, from the mature and well-respected Theodore Boone to the every-so opinionated office secretary Elsa. Without a doubt, Theodore Boone: Kid Lawyer entices the reader into the mystery that is will Mr. Duffy be proved innocent or guilty? John Grisham does a great job into hooking the reader into wanting more of this eye-opening crime and drama novel.
Convictions. Now Juries Expect the Same Thing – and That's a Big Problem.” U.S. News
people in these 21st century society wonder, “When is Justice to be done?” For district attorneys,
In the United States, jury trials are an important part of our court system. We rely heavily on the jury to decide the fate of the accused. We don’t give a second thought to having a jury trial now, but they were not always the ‘norm’.
The judicial system we know today has changed in many ways. One of the ways this system changed is how they reach a verdict, In the modern day long investigation have to take place and reliable evidence has to be shown to the court so that there is less chance that the accused could be misjudged unlike the medieval times were it was common that people were misjudged. The medieval period taught us that we have to be sure of which person is guilty and innocent. Unlike believing one Man’s word like the medieval
To Kill a Mockingbird, by Harper Lee, illustrates the early twentieth century’s historical realities through the case between Tom Robinson and Bob Ewell. This certain case comes off as a no brainer for most of the townspeople, discerning a black man’s testimony against a white man’s. This is because of the majority of the town still in withholding of Jim Crow ideals. Nonetheless, hope was still had by Atticus Finch, who was the defenders attorney, and his family for victory seeming the plaintiff is a half crazy middle aged man, whom most of the town would rather not associate with. As Mr. Ewell had his testimony, on the other side of the hall Tom Robinson had his counterclaim ready to go against the odds. Jim Crow laws and the depression only
It is no secret that the American legal system is distinct from other developed Western nations in its practices and laws. This variation, termed “adversarial legalism” by Professor Robert Kagan in his book, Adversarial Legalism, has two salient features: formal legal contestation and litigant activism. In civil and criminal law, jury trials and a specific lawyering culture exemplify these traits. Though adversarial legalism responds well to the American desires of justice and protection from harm while simultaneously respecting the societal fear of a government with too much power, it leads to extremely costly litigation and immense legal uncertainty. To reconcile the American view of justice and the undesirable outcomes of formal contestation and litigant activism, the legal system has gone so far as to reform large parts of the system, including bureaucratic regulations and the plea bargaining process. However, as Kagan states, rather than reduce the costliness or uncertainty of the legal process, these procedural changes have merely lead to an increase in litigation and, therefore, an increase of adversarial legalism in criminal and civil law.
In “Mistakes, Misunderstandings, and Misalignments” Jules L. Coleman argues, “there is an inconsistency in how the standard of care is set versus how damages are awarded [in the criminal justice system]” (). Meaning, the law does not abide by the same verdict when punishing as when protecting. When penalizing, the law usually targets the financially unfortunate in this case Hector. Conversely, when protecting, the criminal justice system seeks to defend the affluent, Emily. This creates a double standard in which fear is instilled in the poor while a sense of security is granted to the
... In a speech to the House of Lords in 1844 Lord Denman remarked: 'Trial by jury itself, instead of being a security to persons who are accused, will. be a delusion, a mockery and a snare. The question of juror competence remains a recurrent feature in both the research and policy. literature (Horowitz et al., 1996; Penrod & Heuer, 1997). Indeed, in the. 1998 the Home Office invited commentary on whether an alternative to the traditional jury system was appropriate for cases of serious fraud.
These injustices have begun long before Tom’s trial, but it is his trial which epitomizes the problems with our society. The first witness was simply just a misguided fellow named Heck Tate who it seems didn’t have much to offer to the case. Next, Atticus Finch called Bob Ewell to the stand. When I saw Ewell take the stand such a fierce hatred rose within me that I began to shake and tremble. Ewell wrongfully accused Tom of raping his daughter Mayella, however, with the grace of God, Atticus Finch had shown that it was very possible that it was Bob Ewell who because he was a lefty could have beat Mayella. If it were not for great men like Atticus Finch I would have lost all hope for this world. As I watched Mayella take the stand I wondered how such a kind looking person could be someone of such poor character. Her words seemed to paint a picture of a sad life; one where a father neglects her and she has fallen under hard times. Atticus, after pointing out it was probably Bob who beat her, asked Mayella who it really was that beat her. Mayella made it clear it was Tom Robinson, upon which Atticus asked Tom to stand. To the astonishment of the court Tom was handicapped! Tom was then called to the stand where he laid open for all to see the truth, explaining that it was Mayella who came on to him (that treacherous woman!). Soon enough the trial ended and every one awaited the verdict of the jury. The next few hours were the most nerve wracking of my life.