A Civil Action Essay Research Paper In

A Civil Action Essay, Research Paper

In a trial, rhetoric is an important part in the success or failure of a case. This is a double-edged sword; it can play out either good or bad. Rhetoric can be used to stress an important detail or idea, but it can also to derail the other side s case, or, just take them out mentally. Unfortunately for Jan, it didn t work to his advantage. Facher s repeated objections caused Jan to lose track and to disturb him. This is not fair, nor right, but it is a part of the legal game that a lawyer must be ready to deal with. If a lawyer is thrown off balance by these tactics, the jury will most likely notice this, and it can be seen as a sign of inconsistency; hurting the chances of presenting a successful case. However, these tactics are viewed differently, depending on the side of the courtroom one happens to be on. To the defendant who happens to be using these tools of the trade , it is a defense which can only help to serve your side better. To the attorney though, nothing can hurt them more. These rhetoric objections serve only one purpose in their mind: to obscure the truth. In a case with so much at stake, these are the times which these tactics are critical, and, they do the most damage. With the Woburn trial over, the families are the ones hit the hardest. The truth lost in a sea of lies and objections, the defendant s lawyers have done their job, but only to add more persons to the corrupt world we live in.

2. Money. The root of all evil. The savior of justice? Could it be that money is all we need to buy justice in this day and age? Money has not only become a constant, but to some extent, a necessity in today s society and also in the courtroom. It is very important to the legal profession (in more ways than one) and a great advantage to have in a case. With money, a side has the ability to hire experts, buy supplies, and invest in studies, all to learn more about the situation to better aid the preparation of presenting the case more effectively. More often than not, the party with the deepest pockets does win, but not always. It is still the presentation, which wins the case, but, as mentioned earlier, money is an advantage, one, which can overcome even the greatest presentation. The Woburn case does support the deep pockets theory, but it was an unusual set of circumstances for an unusual case. Both sides had money; one just used it more efficiently. Jan was not really one to let handle money. Had they (the firm) made better use of their money, the trial may have ended differently.

To be at a disadvantage with anything, is not a good sign. To present a legal case from a financial disadvantage is nothing but an uphill battle, as our young lawyer has shown. I do believe it is possible though to present a fair case with this disadvantage clinging to you at every step of the way. The most important thing to remember is to focus on what you need, nothing more, because of your limited funds. A solid case can compete only if planned right and thought through. Then, and only then, shall a person at a financial disadvantage have a chance at present a case, will and fairly.

3. For the most part, the courts due uphold the law and reinforce social rules and values… while they deter behavior contrary to those rules and values . With this as their duty, they must achieve their goal or society will cave in around us; leaving us in a world without values or laws.

Reading A Civil Action has not significantly changed my view of the American judiciary system. I believe that one will never be able to go anywhere without one person who is corrupt, prejudice, or unfair. Having this belief sickens me, but in the world today that is how many things are and we have to deal with them. It is unfortunate though that Jan had to deal with a judge like Skinner. The part that bothered me the most was he fact the story is true. It is hard to believe that a judge could so be some prejudice against a lawyer that it clouds his judgment on such a monumental case with such high stakes. Nonsense like this should not be tolerated in our judiciary system. Fortunately, most judges in the system are of high standards and do their job to the best of their capabilities. These are the people who set the standard for the American society and will continue to help us based on their rulings and decisions. It truly is a travesty that a judge such as Skinner could work in the same profession as these other great men.