Preparing for a Client Interview - Essay Example

Preparing for a Client Interview What steps are necessary to prepare for the interview? The steps that are necessary to prepare for the interview may be summarized as follows: Hearing and understanding the facts of this case, especially with regard to the plaintiff’s cause of action of battery against the defendant, without justified provocation. The defendant’s action has caused bodily harm to the client. It is necessary to ascertain the legal implications governing acts of battery under US Tort Laws The various principles, legal antecedents and backgrounds surrounding previously decided cases of this nature and how the Courts have provided judgment to them.

The facts that would be the determining factor in this case and the appropriate punishment that could be meted out to the defendant for his misdeamours The information that is to be obtained from the client would be: 1. A brief summary of what actually transpired before, during and after the battery case was established. 2. The precipitating cause for the injury caused to the plaintiff, whether its accidental nature could be proved to the Court. 3. Possible line of plea by the defense and how to counter it. 4. Whether cause for compensatory damages or punitive damages or both- give reasons caused by “bodily injury, sickness, disease, or death sustained by any person and caused by an occurrence for which a particular state or anyone else may be held liable.

” (Personal Injury, 2008). 5. The evidences for and against the plaintiff’s cause of action. Case Laws: The case laws that could be invoked are first, the decided case of Commonwealth v, Chamber 57 MASS Ct.47 (2003) involving battery. It was decided by the learned Judges that a victim of a battery need not be made aware of the fact of the act of battery to occur in order to press legal action. In this case, it was ruled that the defendant was convicted when he dashed his car on to another car which contained his ex-girlfriend and others.

While the victim was not aware of the infliction, the Court found that that sufficient proof was available to book the defendant on battery charges. (Washington, 2006, P. 8). In yet another case law relating to assault and battery, the case of Commonwealth v. Dunn 56 Mass.App.Ct.89 (2002) the Courts ruled that the statements made by the victim of domestic violence could not be constituted as “spontaneous utterances” if it were made with the specific design of getting the defendant arrested .

In this case, the defendant severely assaulted the victim, and she left home the following day. Upon questioning regarding the incident, she made statements that were taken into Court as “spontaneous utterances.” The Court, however, reached the understanding that these statements were specifically rehearsed and spoken for the victim to get herself away from the defendant and get him arrested. Since the victim’s statement was rehearsed and not spontaneous it could not be treated as primary evidence, and was not “a spontaneous reaction to the event itself.

” (Washington, 2006, P. 6). Following IRAC this case is being dealt as follows: Issue: This issue relates to a case of battery brought about by the victim- applicant against a co-worker defendant who caused him bodily harm without apparent provocation. In this case, the applicant’s sexual preferences may not be considered a major factor since it is of no significance to the bearing of this case, except in as far as, the defendant may use the pretext of being touched by the applicant, with sexual overtures, which is not a true statement.

Rule: The rule that is applicable in this case is that of unprovoked battery causing bodily harm, but without intent to kill. But the fact remains that the defendant was not only guilty of committing the offence but had done it voluntarily causing harm and suffering to the victim. (Byers Fall, 2002). Application: In cases of physical battery it has to be either criminal or civil. The civil aspect would be deemed as carried if reasonable cause of action is established and it could be proved that the defendant had acted outside the course of normal behavior.

In this case it is seen that the victim was administered bodily injury, allegedly, through no fault of his. Conclusion: This case would revolve upon the admissibility of evidence that could prove that the applicant was a victim of unprovoked and brutal attack and bodily harm caused by the defendant. (The Free Dictionary, 2008). Reference Byers Fall. (2002). Criminal law outline: The structure of criminal offense. Elements of Crimes. The Act Requirement (Actus Reus). Retrieved February 15, 2008, from http://community.

washburnlaw.edu/aalsa/outlines/crimlaw-byers.doc Personal Injury. (2008). Personal Injury settlement. Retrieved February 15, 2008, from http://www.personal-injury-info.net/assaultbattery-caselaw.htm The Free Dictionary. (2008). IRAC: Issue, Rule, Application and Conclusion. Retrieved February 15, 2008, from http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/Issue,+Rule,+Application,+Conclusion+(legal+writing) Washington, D. V. (2006. June 19). Federal Victims Rights Case Law Summary. Crimes against the Person.

Public justice: Assault. P. 6-8. Retrieved February 15, 2008, from http://www.mass.gov/mova/pdfs/CaseLawAug2006.pdf