Paper Example on Facts of the Cases, Applicable Law and Verdict Reached

Introduction

The facts of R vs. Poulson are that the defendant, Mr. Poulson was driving a motor vehicle when he collided with Smith who was riding a bicycle at the crosswalk at the intersection of Elm Street and Third Avenue. Mr. Poulson. Smith broke his leg after the impact of the collision which took place around 7 pm .on the 23ed of April. The facts of R vs. Alli are that after a drug search was conducted in Jackson school and Alli's bag was found with a small amount of Marijuana on the zipper compartment inside the backpack. Alli defended herself by stating that she did not know about the Marijuana inside the bag because she had bought it on April 19tt at a garage sale and probably came with the Marijuana.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Applicable Law

The applicable law in the case of the state of Minnesota v. Max Poulson is section 169.13 of the Minnesota statutes. Subdivision 1 (a) and subdivision (2) of section 169.13 which in part states that "A person who drives a motor vehicle while aware of and consciously disregarding a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the driving may result in harm to another or another's property is guilty of reckless driving." (2014 Minnesota statutes Chapters 160-174 A-Transportation- Chapter 169- section 169.13 Traffic Regulations- Reckless OR Careless Driving, 2014). The applicable law in the case of R vs. Alli is Minnesota statutes 152.027 Possession or sale of small amounts of Marijuana. This subdivision states in part that, "A person who possesses a small amount of Marijuana is guilty of a petty misdemeanor."

Verdict

The verdict delivered by the jury after deliberating the case of R v. Max Poulson was in favor of the State since they concluded that the defendant Mr. Poulson was guilty of the accused charges.

(I need to know the verdict reached in the case of R. Alli. I also need the full citation of R vs. Marshall so that I can find it.)

General Comment about the Mock Trial and what I Learned during the Mock Trial

The mock trial was an exciting experience since it brings the imagination of participating in a trial process into practical reality. It took away the seriousness attached classwork theoretical formality. All my classmates generally enjoyed it. The mock trial exposed me to a lot of legalese that is essential for a lawyer when addressing or receiving court directions from the presiding judge. The oral arguments made by the defense and prosecution lawyers showed depth and thorough preparation which impressed everyone in class including the judges who encouraged every participant to be adequately prepared for subsequent cases. It was also interesting noting how lawyers were elated after scoring significant concessions during cross-examinations. Ultimately, the mock trial exposed me to the real world of litigation, and I purpose to continue improving myself as I aspire to venture into the world of litigation as a career lawyer.

Non Speaking Roles

I also played the role of a jury member during which, I had to take sufficient notes during the trial process as the attorneys and the witnesses were engaged during direct examination and cross-examination. These notes helped me during mock deliberations as I was able to firmly articulate my point of view as far as the case was concerned. Note taking also made me immune to the Dunning-Kruger effect where jurors that did not pay keen attention during the examination process feel more knowledgeable than those who were attentive.

The other role I got to play in the case of R vs. Poulson was a court reporter. In this particular role, I was tasked with the duty of taking depositions to preserve the averments made by the witnesses during interrogatories for record purposes. I noted how the lawyers tactically asked clear-cut questions to the witnesses and demanded precise answers without drifting away from the subject matter of the inquiries. The lawyers were thorough in their interrogatories making sure the adversary witnesses evaded no question. They were also cautious not to ask leading questions that attract objections from adversary lawyers. The written transcripts were used by the judge, parties involved in the case and for the court's record.

There are several vital skills that I learned during the Mock trial activity. One of the critical skills that I learned was to project my voice is such a manner that could be heard by everyone present at the mock court. Learning how to speak with conviction audibly is a big score for me since I naturally have a low and soft voice. I was happy that I was able to logically and coherently communicate to the judge, attorneys, and the jury while the prosecutor engaged me during direct examination. I believe my testimony was precise since I gave the exact details that best showed how the victim was not at fault during the traffic collision. There were times that I felt like the adversary lawyer was bullying me into making statements that would favor the defendant. I had to be firm and insist on the facts as they happened. If the defense attorney would have continued with the bullying, then the persecutor would have stood up to raise a point of objection seeking the judge to order the defense attorney to change his tact when questioning a witness.

While playing a juror's role, I was able to derive appropriate legal conclusions because the direct evidence was tabled before the court. It also requires a juror to be keen when listening to witnesses' statements so as not be swayed by irrelevant facts. I enjoyed the varying points of views expressed when deliberating with my classmates especially when considering if there was any contributory negligence on the part of the victim during the vehicular accident. I was keen on analyzing testimony given by witnesses to ensure that my ultimate conclusion was not only logical but also legally correct. My most memorable session was during the deliberations of the second trial where members of the jury were heavily opinionated and engaged in protracted proceedings that consumed a lot of the court's time before concluding. I learned that sober and sound understanding of a case is essential during deliberations. We had other memorable moments when members of the jury made fun of witness testimonies that gave the jurors laughter during deliberations. As subsequent trials took place, jury members spent far much less time to determine the victim of the cases since they were able to focus on the relevant thus saving time strictly. There were some light moments during the interrogatories especially when Fred was playing the role of a witness gave amusing responses that sent the whole mock court into laughter. When asked by the interrogating lawyer to describe himself, he humorously responded by saying, "I am just a student." The mock trial gave me an opportunity to understand the rules of evidence better while playing the role of a court reporter. I was keen to observe the nature of evidence adduced by the lawyers and the approval given by the judges. I learned that a good lawyer has to be keen determining the right kind of evidence to adduce in court to support his case. This skill prevents a lawyer from laboring in vain during preparations. Learning the rules of evidence also saves a lawyer from embarrassment by discerning irrelevant evidence that can quickly be taken as relevant by a layman's mind. The judge guides the jury typically on the type of evidence and testimony that they may rely on when deliberating and arriving at their ultimate unanimous decision. From the jury box, I was able to learn the standard procedure applicable in criminal trials that essentially sets the order in which the parties to the case take turns in making opening statements and closing statements to interrogating the witnesses. It also dawned on me that jurors can erroneously make up a witness' character through physiognomy by observing his appearance. Physiognomy happens when jurors are finding the truth as issued by the deponents.

As a witness, I learned that one should not contradict what other witnesses had testified. Since many cases are won or lost at the witness stand, it is of great import that witnesses should have their facts right. This lesson will help me even as I aspire to be a lawyer because I will be able to prepare my witnesses in a manner that will ensure their averments do not contradict each other while at the witness'stand. I also learned the importance of making a witness feel comfortable during direct examination as well as during cross-examination. I experienced first-hand and understood that witnesses who are tensed up and not relaxed are likely to be hostile during cross-examination. If a lawyer is unable to extract the right information that will help his case, then the chances are that he may lose the case. Ultimately, the roles of a witness, juror, and reporter gave me an eye-opening experience since I was able to comprehend and appreciate the practical lessons.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I mastered a lot of vital lessons regarding criminal procedure rules and the systematic procedure of a court session right from when the court commences when the bailiff calls the court to session till when it adjourns. I am now able to seamlessly execute the various roles especially the roles of a defense attorney and the prosecution. I learned the art of making opening and closing statements that are compelling to the jury as well as conducting direct and cross-examination that is meant to secure concessions from the witnesses tactically. I also know at the particular reasons that an attorney can use to make valid objections that the judge can allow during cross-examinations. Principally, the mock trial sessions have given me an enriching and insightful experience that has made me even more confident as a lawyer in the making. I am looking forward to subsequent mock trials that will help me cement the lessons learned.

References

US codes and statutes. 2014 Minnesota statutes Chapters 160-174 A-Transportation- Chapter 169- section 169.13 Traffic Regulations- Reckless OR Careless Driving (2014). Minnesota.