Mock Trial: Selecting a Jury, Legal Analysis, and Closing Argument for the Plaintiff - Essay Example

?Mock Trial Assignments Table of Contents 0Selecting a jury 3 3.0Legal Analysis 5 4.0Closing Argument for the Plaintiff 6 References 8 0 Selecting a jury When selecting a jury, several factors must be considered so that the plaintiff can be rest assured of a fair process in the courts. The process through which a jury is constituted is commonly known as Voire Dire. The plaintiff can therefore undertake this process through randomly selecting the jury from registered voters in which he hails from (Robert). However, by so doing, the pools becomes quite bigger than the necessity thus trimming must be done in order to get the required number. Several questions must be addressed so that the plaintiff is assured of a fair case in the courts. The background of the jurors is important to note when selecting the potential ones for representation (Walter and James). Firstly, the level of education is of paramount importance. Of pivotal value also is the number of members in the family as well as spouses. This activity of asking such questions tries to investigate any prejudices that may be hidden which could lead to the negation of a fair trial. For instance a jury could have been a victim of such a case in the past hence this aspect may lead to ultimate bias directed towards the defendant thus spoiling the relevance of the case under question. On the other hand, the defendant should likewise exercise caution in the selection of the jury to safeguard the rights bestowed in him. The reason behind such undertaking is to prevent unfair circumstances that hamper administration of justice to the aggrieved parties. For example, the defendant in this case must ask about the family members of the potential juror since it can be so coincidental that one of the parties to which he has a relationship leads in a certain insurance company and so on. This could pose challenges because the potential juror may sway favoritism towards the defendant hence no instance of justice would be encountered. The jury out to exhibit dire competence at all costs as well as professionalism to the parties, the defendant and the plaintiff. 2.0 Opening Statement for the Defendants As the case before us exhibits, there is a lot of negligence on the part of the plaintiff. From the instructions given by the manufacturer, 1-4B has largely been used in the manufacture products in the household platform yet for it to turn dangerous in its GHB form; large amounts have to be ingested in very high quantities (Andrew). Notably, production of Princess Beads doesn’t use high levels of this element thus this renders the plaintiff’s claim baseless. Additionally, we expressed our responsibility by giving reliable warning information concerning the product hence the plaintiff negligently dismissed this aspect. To this respect, we can’t be liable for the inconveniences neither the eventual death of the plaintiff’s son, Joey Davis. Specifically, Princess Beads has been positioned strategically in the market to target children of older age than that of Joey; we can never be bound by any law to follow each person purchasing Princess Beads to make sure it’s used appropriately. Thus, it’s my view, that of the entire company that the plaintiff was responsible for the death of her son by not advising the caregivers to adhere to the instructions directed by the manufacturer. They ought to have played their supervisory role in the manner expected to prevent such unfortunate occurrences. If I was a member of the panel of the jury, I would elect an eloquent person to deliver the opening statement. The person should possess a convincing capacity with powerful elaboration skills so as to make sure that the points are delivered to the judges in a sequential and orderly manner which is both convincing and reliable (Hamid). The ultimate efficiency with which the same is done therefore adds value to this case and will hence build a strong defense that in not easy to surpass. By so doing therefore, the foregoing will add bonus points and also give a bearing to the case in question without fear or prejudice. Apart from the oratory skills, the person should possess high levels of knowledge in the subject matter under discussion and if possible hold considerable experience in such cases and should have a high convincing capacity by which explanations and further elaborations can be made. With such characteristics in place, the presentation of the case will have additional value by depicting the clear view of the defendant’s point of view regarding the case in question. 3.0 Legal Analysis With a view to winning this case, the plaintiff is bound by the law to prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, that there was no negligence in her part. These prove should encompass the fact that the marketing of Princess Beads did not elaborate the aspect of death dangers once ingested. The plaintiff should use legal basis to prove to the court that then poison in the 1-4B substance caused death regardless of the magnitude of the level of ingestion. Generally, this would aim at convincing the court that the manufacturer’s directions were absolutely wrong and misleading causing the eventual death of the two year infant. Equally, the plaintiff ought to prove that the specifications failed to give a clear view of the beads and that the aspect of the Princess Beads being only for babies above two years was out of place. The issue of age should be termed controversial because provided a person consumes poison, he or she is bound to face fatal consequences with little regard to the age of that very person. There has to be an element of disapproval that the caregivers were irresponsible in their duty causing the death. The plaintiff ought to also disapprove the defendants that their burden of responsibility ends at issuing adequate warnings on the packaging. With this in mind therefore, the plaintiff can argue from the basis that it is the duty of the defendant to make follow up exercises to the public to ascertain the level of brand perception alongside other issues. Therefore, the defendant was bound by duty to do market surveys is he agrees and well knew beforehand that the Princess Beads had some level of poisoning. No product should target infant market if it contains an element of poison regardless of the actual content and that the manufacturer was instead negligent of this fact by marketing the Princess Beads product. On its part, the defense may respond appropriately to these claims by showing an exhibit of the precautions offered thereon by the manufacturer of this product. It (defense) can claim that every person must scrutinize the contents of any product before coming up with a purchase decision. Thus, the argument about the poisoning effect should have been noted at the earliest opportunity so that buying of the product could be avoided. It is therefore malicious and sheer negligence to assume their role in the buying decision process and such acts ought to be avoided, not only by the plaintiff but also anyone with the same intentions of purchasing Princess Beads. The manufacturer expected this adherence with no need to follow up the market for views which is another activity altogether. Through these arguments, the plaintiff claims should be termed misdirected and ones with a motive to spoil the reputation of HappyLand Toy Company. 4.0 Closing Argument for the Plaintiff From the foundation laid down in then arguments, it is clear that the defendant erred in the presentation of its brand to the market. In the first place, it is criminally offensive to market a product that would injure the health of the populace knowingly. By admitting to the court that the Princess Beads contained a substance that was poisonous was an admission of lack of ethics thus should be treated with all the contempt possible. It doesn’t matter how poisonous something is but the fact is that it contains fatal elements. The court should therefore uphold its mandate to hold the defendant liable for what happened to the plaintiff going by the fact that we are dealing with the life of a person. The plaintiff feels this great loss and wants the court to teach the manufacture a lesson so that even other potential producers of similar goods can be warned in advance so that we can prevent future damages. If the court rules in the plaintiffs favor many lives will be protected as this is the mandate of the court to remain free, fair and observant of the rights of the people with regard to life. References Andrew, Lopez. The Defendant in the Three Piece Suit. iUniverse, 2007. Hamid, Kusha. Defendant rights: a reference handbook. ABC-CLIO, 2004. Robert, Wenke. The art of selecting a jury. C.C Thomas, 2003. Walter, Jordan and Gobert James. Jury selection: the law, art, and science of selecting a jury. Shepard's/McGraw-Hill, 2000. Read More