Issue Spotters 1. At the trial, after Sue calls her witnesses, offers her evidence, and otherwise presents her side of the case, Tom has at least two choices between courses of action. Tom can call his first witness. What else might he do? (See Following a State Court Case.) Answer: Tom can file a motion for a directed verdict. It would get the judge to take the decision out of the hands of the jury and to direct a verdict for the party making the motion on the ground that the other party has not produced sufficient evidence to support her or his claim. 2. Sue contracts with Tom to deliver a quantity of computers to Sue’s Computer Store. They disagree over the amount, the delivery date, the price, and the quality. Sue files a suit against Tom in a state court. Their state requires that their dispute be submitted to mediation or nonbinding arbitration. If the dispute is not resolved, or if either party disagrees with the decision of the mediator or arbitrator, will a court hear the case? Explain. (See Alternative Dispute Resolution.) Answer: Yes, a court will hear the case. Agreement to the decision is …show more content…
Advance Technology Consultants, Inc. (ATC), contracted with RoadTrac, LLC, to provide software and client software systems for products using global positioning satellite (GPS) technology being developed by RoadTrac. RoadTrac agreed to provide ATC with hardware with which ATC’s software would interface. Problems soon arose, however, and RoadTrac filed a lawsuit against ATC alleging breach of contract. During discovery, RoadTrac requested ATC’s customer lists and marketing procedures. ATC objected to providing this information because RoadTrac and ATC had become competitors in the GPS industry. Should a party to a lawsuit have to hand over its confidential business secrets as part of a discovery request? Why or why not? What limitations might a court consider imposing before requiring ATC to produce this material? (See Following a State Court
The Petitioner filed a motion for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence disputing that the Government was negligent in disclosing a purported promise of leniency made to Robert Taliento, their key witness in exchange for his testimony. At a hearing on this motion, the Assistant United States Attorney, DiPaola, who presented the case to the grand jury admitted that he promised the witness that he would not be prosecuted if he testified before the grand jury and at trial. The Assistant (Golden) who tried the case was unaware of the promise. The defendant seeks to overturn his conviction on the grounds that this non-disclosure was a violation of his Due Process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
In a memo from Helia Hull dated September 20, 2016, the details of the incident involve an inadvertent disclosure of privileged attorney-client documents submitted for discovery by Rosen & Quinn of Chicago, council for defendant in Whelan v. Speedy Motors, Inc. The suit arose as a product liability case from the alleged injuries suffered by Ms. Whelan when the accelerator pedal installed in a Wondercart manufactured by Speedy, failed to function properly. On behalf of Speedy our office was retained for the purpose of performing certain aspects of discovery that later proved to be the result of the inadvertent disclosure.
make there decision, but in the end there was no way that the jury was going to believe a
Jury.” Before the Law: An Introduction to the Legal Process. Ed. John J. Bonsignore., et.
summary of the evidence. He will then invite the jury to retire and to reach a unanimous verdict. The jury can be asked to give a
his/her own witness as well as a presentation of defense by his/her attorney in order to conflict
handle the truth!" Contrary to most belief, this is not how a court works. Jury duty is a good way
Appeals & Writs: If Joe is convicted, He may file an appeal to an appellate level court with the argument that the trial court made legal errors. If the defense can prove that the trial court made legal errors, or you were denied due process of law or a fair trial, it may result in the reversal of Joes
The night of the murder one witness, the lady across the el tracks, claims she saw the defendant stab his father in the chest. On the night of the murder she said that she wasn’t able to sleep and that she had tossed and turned all night. Then she casually rolled over, looked out the window, and happened to see the accused stab his father in chest, but the witness was not wearing her glasses when she saw the murder. I can tell that she wears glasses because of the deep marks on the sides of her nose. So, it could have been someone else that the witness saw murder the father. Another witness, the elderly man who lives downstairs from the defendant, stated that he heard the boy yell "I'm going to kill you" to his father, heard the body fall and hit the floor, and in 15 seconds saw my client running out the house. It is possible that the old man could have heard wrong
Mediation is typically ordered in types of cases that there is significant emotional ties; creating a potential for hostility, loss of relationships or personal feelings getting in the way of reaching an agreement. Arbitration is the best option for cases where the parties simply cannot come to an agreement and decide to have someone else decide the outcome of the case for them, without the expense and formality of a trial. Arbitration is also useful in highly complex cases where it is necessary to have a highly trained professional come to the
In doing so, he evokes emotion from the jury to the extent of proving Tom's innocence. One way he accomplishes this is by speaking about Mayella in a way that brings out the jurors sentiment. He says, “I have nothing but pity in my heart for the chief witness for the state, but my pity does not extend so far as to her putting a man’s life at stake, which she has done in an effort to get rid of her own guilt.” This inflicts remorse on Mayella and makes the jurors have mercy on her, but also displeasure in view of the fact that she could be
Alternative Dispute Resolution or ADR refers to a number of various processes that can be used to resolve legal disputes other than by litigation. Recently, methods of dispute resolution which focus on arbitration, mediation and negotiation as an alternative to adjudication have gained notoriety. This notoriety may have been caused by the public perception that ADR methods are less expensive, more efficient, and more satisfactory than the normal traditional course of litigation. The goals of establishing these processes to resolve disputes as an alternative to more formal legal processes include: 1) to make the regular court system more efficient, less costly and more responsive to the needs of the litigants; 2) to offer alternative methods of dispute resolution in addition to the regular court system; and 3) to provide public education about the available alternatives.
In the world of commerce, employment, and other social relations, businesses and individuals strive to choose either arbitration or mediation (conciliation). There are situations when parties submit their cases to arbitration bodies for mediation and, vice versa, when mediators are requested to resolve the dispute through the arbitration award. The arbitration and mediation traditions vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but their general ideas still remain similar. However, while a mediator in a single process possesses no entitled authority to render an award, an arbitrator is vested with more procedural powers and can execute a mediator’s functions. Furthermore, despite the flexibility of arbitration and mediation procedures, as well
...sfied with the outcome and resolution from the mediation session, the parties are given liberties to engage with a court procedure.
Mediation is commonly understood as an informal process whereby a neutral third party person helps the conflicting parties try to reach a mutual settlement and does so with no power to impose a resolution. The mutual settlement between two parties is often viewed as the primary or sole value and benefit of going through a mediation process (Baruch & Folger, 2005). Mediation is also seen as a voluntary method of resolving disputes with others. A mediation session is usually a confidential meeting and a safe place to air differences where the mediator or third party person helps participants communicate information and develop resolutions to address their conflicting views (Butler, 2004). Within mediation there are four main approaches: win/lose solution, hopelessness, war, and a win/win solution. The win/lose solution occurs when only one party benefits...