Business Law Court Paper Assignment Essay

On November 5, 2008, I came to observe a proceeding in the King County lord Court where the opines name was Shaffer Catherine. I did observe the closing arguments and the boards apparent motion to the show window in a criminal proceeding where subject of the guinea pig was rapine in the second base leg. Mark Alan gong, as the defendant in the observed shimmy, was super charged with second degree plunder for punching a man named Jesse Gill at a wedding reception, and eventu in ally knocking him down to the ground.Bell was reckon to withdraw punched Gill because the latter was hence sexually harassing women at the wedding reception. Gill, with all freedom, also say to bedevil harassed Bells wife and in return he got punched in the facial expression by Bell. To stop the commotion caused by the harassment by d iodine Gill and the eventual punching against him, hatful at the wedding responded by calling the police. The state ended up charging Mark Bell for assault in the second degree for the alleged punching against.With Bell having been charged with assault in second degree in a criminal proceeding, it was a big surprise to me when Judge Jude Shaffer changed the case into civil genius because of self confession invoked by defendant Bell. At this point, the beg went to recess before bringing the jury back appear. While in court recess, we went to the defendants lawyer and asked him a couple of questions. I am non sure as to what the lawyers name but she was the alone one that was willing to talk to us ab reveal the case.The prosecutor simply walked out as soon as the court went to recess. The defendants lawyer told us that the trial has been going on for about both weeks then and that luckily the judge had decided that the defendant was not inculpatory to the second degree assault charge when we came to observe. The same lawyer also told us that she was still waiting for the jury to come out and decide whether or not Bell should enamo r the money back from the state, e. g. money he had incapacitated from work while in court, lawyer fees, parking fees, etc.The defendants lawyer gave us a very(prenominal) informative briefing and was very helpful. After talking to the defendants, lawyer the court resumed and the jury was brought into the courtroom. It was interesting to regulate them come right out and sit in a very organized manner. The defendants lawyer and the prosecutor both talked to the jury and explained their side of the argument. The defendants lawyer seemed to convince the jury that the state should pay Bell all of the money that he had woolly-headed as a result of being brought to court.After the prosecutor and the defendants lawyer got through with(p) explaining their views to the jury, the judge summarized parts of the case to the jury and concluded by saying that the defendant was not guilty to the second degree assault charge. The judge then asked the jury deuce questions. The jury could only s ay a simple yes or no to each question and nothing else. All twelve verbalise yes to each question. Soon after that the criminal case was dismissed by the court, happiness broke out for the defendant, his lawyer, and his family.The prosecutor quickly congratulated the defendants lawyer and walked out the court thereafter. Bell had about cardinal family members that were in the court. Including us, it was a total of 5 people listening to the case. This seemed odd to me because I had al routes horizon that a lot of people would be inside the court just like the movies and television shows. As we were leaving the court, we also congratulated the defendants lawyer and thanked her for the help. We asked the lawyer if we could get some documents explaining the case and what had happened during the two week trial.The lawyer gave us a case number and told us to go down to the sixth floor and use the com honkers they arrest there to search documents using that case number. We did as she had said, but regrettably we found no documents as they were not yet available for this case. Part 2 Opinion This case was a very interesting event. I always knew but never truly accepted the detail that any offense in this country could actually go to court. Protecting yourself or new(prenominal)s could still get you into trouble and you could still be made to answer in the court of law. Mr.Bell was found by police to be the one assaulting but his act as came out of determination was in defense of other(a) persons including his wife from being harassed. His act of punching Gill, the harassing person, was seen by the police as an act of assault and for which rationalness he was charged with a crime of assault in second degree. But since Bell was doing what was everyday in humans, as found by court, in order to assert their right of defend other peoples honor or person, then, I imagine the courts decision to change from criminal case to civil case must not be baseless after wall.The court may have found that there was no criminal intent on the part of the Bell to be charged of the crime since Bell was fully exercising a valid of defending other person including his wife or primarily defending first his wife before the others. Indeed how could he be charged something when he was not doing the punching to attach Gill for nothing but was using necessary the means to springy Gill that was already out of his mind or perhaps committing a crime in devising the harassment? Having right people to help you out and protect you in a court case or situation must be interesting because ones honor or conversance is at stake.I mean the defendant could either win or lose the case. If he loses he goes to prison or if he wins he gets free. If Mr. Bell did not have a good lawyer to help him out, he would have been totally charged with assault and would then have to face sombre consequences. To have observed the defendants lawyer in helping Mr. Bell out with all the a ccusations against him was rather touching. So much pathos has to be used in order to overcome the positions on paper. In other words, the lawyer had to be emotional by having others imagine if they were in such a situation.I think it is the human drama in court that made my court experience very much interesting although I may not agree with the outcome of the courts decision. My resolve for disagreeing in the decision is that I would be mad if my girlfriend was sexually harassed or other women in front of me but I find not a valid excuse to arrange a hand on someone else for mere harassment. I dont believe that I should have the right to defend someone else, unless they are being physically hurt and even then the best thing to do is to stop the action and not cause more damage.In my understanding, Mr. Bell was never once touched during the wedding rather he started the fight and the damage by punching another guy. As bad as it sounds to a persons pride or ego, Mr. Bell should h ave totally been charged with assault. I thought that the attorney did a pretty decent job defending Mr. Bell. I mean, given the fact that I am against the outcome of the court, the lawyer must have through a good job to get him out of the trouble that I think he should be in.Perhaps my understanding was not supported by evidence as presented or controverted by the lawyer as there is the possibility that the fight did not really start from Mr. Bell and that he was playing in defense of his wifes honor. If such was the real case borne by evidence, I believe there should be justification for the dismissal of the charge against Bell. To believe this latter version would seem tenable because the punch was in direct response to the dishonor caused to the wife due to the harassment.I mean punching a man by another to the defend a wifes honor need not me unreasonable enough to justify the assault. But then as I said, this latter version is contrasting from my own understanding as stated earlier. The trial could be described as well go across with the defense lawyer, prosecutor, the judge and the jury having performed their functions in the case. But again, since I do not agree with the decision due to my own understanding of the facts, I feel not emotionally at ease with the way things have come about.However, the fact that the criminal proceeding was change to civil proceeding and the fact that the judge had the agreement from the jury on the questions propounded, it stands to good reason that perhaps justice is served upon the accused or defendant. The fact the lawyer also mentioned about the defendant having to claim the lost amount of money or amends against as a result of Bell being dragged to court, may be taken as a reason to merit the strength of the decision acquitting the defendant.To sum it all, I believe the difference of my opinion as to what should have been done by court and my disagreement with the result would have to be considered really on the basis of what really happened as borne by evidence. Since I may not know the complete facts if my only basis is my observation, I believe I should have the access to more information that may have to answer questions in my mind as to the result of this case. I believe the case is important or any even any case that would merit the attention of the judge and jury.To be brought to court which could put ones life, honor, property or person at stake must be of prevailing importance. Nobody wants to have a guilty person set free but nobody wants to see an innocent person also to be in jail. Work cited TITLE LXII, Criminal Code, Chapter 631, Assault And relate Offenses, Section 6312, www document URL, http//www. gencourt. state. nh. us/rsa/html/LXII/631/631-2. htm, Accessed November 18, 2008