Mock Trial, Plaintiff and Defendants Strategies - Essay Example

Ideal questions would include: Are you a parent? Have they ever been involved in any sort of case like this in any way? If they have been and were on the losing end they may be biased to favor the side of the person that is most disadvantaged by the evidence and ignore evidence and give a biased verdict; however, biased in their favor. The entirety of the plaintiff’s case will likely rely heavily on sympathy, preferably from sympathetic jurors. People who are not parents are likely to render a more impartial decision; however, they will lack sympathy. There is a possibility that non-parents might think that a parent is automatically responsible for their children; it may be harder to convince such people that a third party can be held accountable.

Reiteration of possible questions
1. (to female jurors) Are you a mother or grandmother?
2. Have you ever been involved in a vase of this sort? Particularly involving children?

However, that does not mean that there are no strategies that they can employ in finding jurors that will at least be unbiased in hearing the evidence. Firstly, they would be wise to seek professionals. Ideally others in the business industry, individuals who may be more accustomed to having accusations levied against them that may not be founded. Sadly, they may, also, seek more male jurors over female jurors, primarily, because men are, in general, less likely, or be swayed by sympathy. Unlike the defense, the inclusion of female jurors, particularly women who are mothers, is more likely to be biased against them. In this case, the defense will be more focused on preventing the plaintiffs from gaining jurors likely to be sympathetic rather than seeking jurors that will favor them. So it stands to reason that the line of questioning potential jurors would be very similar.

Reiteration of Possible Questions

1. Are you a parent?

2. Are you a business person? Owner?

3. Have you ever been involved in a legal case of this nature?

B OPENING STATEMENT

Defendant’s Viewpoint

There is no greater loss than the loss of a child. There is no one here who cannot empathize with Mrs. Davis and her loss. No one in this room cannot understand the need to understand how such a tragic accident could ever happen; however, what we cannot do today is allow our sorrow and sympathy to allow such a tragic occurrence to allow false blame to be placed on the Happy Land Toy Company. Today we will review all of the relevant evidence that will verify that the Happy Land Toy Company was not at fault and cannot be held accountable for the tragic loss of life considered in this case. Happy Land Toy Company did produce the Princess Beads; however, they were never intended to be put in anyone’s mouth. They were intended for children much older than Joey. A child as young as Joey should not have been left unattended with a toy that was not safe for his age range.

Also, proof will be given to verify that the levels of the chemical 1-4B, which was used in the fabrication of the Princess Beads, were not at a high enough concentration to poison a child, even one as young as Joey. It is, also, important to point out that the chemical 1-4B is quite common in household supplies and cleaning products. That said, perhaps Joey came into contact with other items containing a higher 1-4B content; after all, if he is not being regularly supervised it stands to reason he could have placed other foreign objects in his mouth, which was far more dangerous than the Princess Beads. The Happy Land Toy Company took every measure to prevent any accidents by packaging and marketing the product to children above the age of two.

They can no more be held accountable if a child were to cut themselves on a disposable razor left in the bathtub. The razor company is not responsible if a small child were to slice his finger while his parent’s back was turned. This is not a case of corporate negligence or lack of proper safety precautions, it is simply a tragic accident and a mourning mother who needs someone to blame, unfortunately, she is blaming the wrong person when she blames my client, the Happy Land Toy Company, who is not responsible in the death of Joey Davis and I believe today you will find that the evidence supports that position. Read More