Get help now

Courtroom Observation

  • Pages 8
  • Words 1810
  • Views 134
  • dovnload



  • Pages 8
  • Words 1810
  • Views 134
  • Academic anxiety?

    Get original paper in 3 hours and nail the task

    Get your paper price

    124 experts online

    In the Courtroom Observation, both sides articulated great facts to why their client should win the case. The Lawyers representing Mr. Edward Hard were making an attempt to persuade the judges to entitle a summary judgment, as the prosecutors were pushing for a trial by jury. With many interesting facts and an extremely odd conscience in this case, the nine judges had a difficult task to handle. Edward Hard was staring down the barrel of conviction or freedom in the court case. Choosing ones side to agree on could go either way, as both sides represented their clients perfectly.

    In this case though, I would agree sides with the appellant, Mrs. Deborah White. I believe that this would be the correct choice because drunk driving is no way to get revenge on any person. Mr. Edward Hard may have not remembered what he had done that night, but his ex-lover Mrs. Deborah White will never forget. This man does not deserve a summary judgment for what he has done, nor does any other drunk driver in the world. Deborah White, the Plaintiff, was Edward Hard’s fiancee at one point in time.

    After the two broke up, the facts state that he became more violent and a heavy drinker. Both parties were regulars at the tavern and most people knew that Edward Hurt still loved Deborah White and had a grudge against Mr. White. Over the course of the night it was stated that Edward had consumed at least eleven alcoholic beverages within a two hour span. It was reported that Edward Hard had a . 20% Blood Alcohol Level at the scene of the accident. According to TAADAS “with a BAC between . 20 – . 25, you become confused, you usually need help doing things, even standing up.

    Those who drive are 50 to 100 times more likely to crash. The average alcohol-related highway death occurs at this level (8-12 drinks within 4 hours… BAC . 20%)” (TAADAS). With consumption of this amount of alcohol within two hours, the bartender should have know this and not of let Mr. Hard drive away. John Daniels, the bartender, knew of the consumption of Edward Hard. John stated that Edward had fallen out of his chair clearly showing signs of intoxication. As Hard consumed his last drink at 7:43, John Daniels was reported to say that Mr. Hard was not visibly intoxicated, letting Edward Hard leave the Tavern and proceed to his vehicle. As Mr. Hard was leaving it was said that he had hit a few mailboxes and other cars while swerving all across the road. Edward Hard then began to follow the Plaintiff, Mrs. White, and her husband. Deborah noticed this behavior of Mr. hard and proceeded to call 9-1-1 stating “He is chasing us! ” After the call, the White’s turned their vehicle leading to Edward Hard crashing into them, killing Mr. White. In my own opinion, I believe there are three different people to blame for this accident.

    First is Edward Hard, because he should not have gotten into the car and chased the couple down the street, but with so much alcohol consumption, he had no idea what he was doing. The second person to be blamed I believe is John Daniels, the bartender, who allowed Mr. Hard leave the Tavern when he clearly stated in the police report that he was drunk. And finally police officers of the Indiana town are to be blamed also. This is because knowing what is going on in the bar, there should always be a police officer in taverns and bars to look out for people who attempt to drink and drive.

    If there were an officer patrolling this area of the bar that night it could have possibly saved one man’s life. In the argument for the Defendant, his lawyers attempted to seek a summary judgment, “a court order ruling that no factual issues remain to be tried and therefore a cause of action or all causes of action in a complaint can be decided upon certain facts without trial” (Hill). These lawyers stated that the evidence of this trial was insufficient and that there was no visual evidence that Edward Hard was intoxicated.

    With this being said, I disagree because when a bartender serves a man over ten alcoholic drinks in a short amount of time, he should know he is intoxicated. When Mr. Hard fell out of his chair at the Tavern, John Daniels should have then known he was drunk and not allowed him to consume anymore alcohol. The two lawyers, who stated that the evidence was insufficient, knew they were wrong. In an argument, how could evidence be insufficient when there was a death involved and the Defendant had a BAC of . 20%?

    Also, the two defending lawyers argued that they should obtain the summary judgment because the incident only happened because Mr. Hard was intoxicated. This may be true, but according to Findlaw. com, “while driving under the influence of alcohol (0. 08 percent or higher blood-alcohol concentration) is illegal for all motorists, all states have so-called “zero-tolerance” laws for underage DUI offenses” (FindLaw). So even though the lawyers have a point, it will be tough for any lawyer in this circumstance to prove that a man who killed another man while intoxicated should be set free and innocent.

    In this case the Defendants lawyers pushed the judges to the Indiana Dram Shop Act. This act states in IC 7. 1-5-10-15 titled ‘Sale to intoxicated person prohibited’ section 15. (a), “It is unlawful for a person to sell, barter, deliver, or give away an alcoholic beverage to another person who is in a state of intoxication if the person knows that the other person is intoxicated” (Indiana Law). What the lawyers tried to do was blame the bartender for what happened, which even in my opinion I agree with this situation. But Mr. Hard is still to blame also, because he was the one driving and ‘chasing’ after Mr. White. One thing that I disagree with the most is when the lawyers said this was a statutory action. I disagree with this because what Edward Hard did was against the common law of not to drink if you are going to drive.

    Biblical Worldview in this court case is on the Plaintiffs side. I believe this because Mrs. White did the right thing by calling the police when she was being chased down by Mr. Hard. Another reason why Biblical Worldview is sided with Mrs. White is because after listening to the case, she sticks with her story whereas the Defendant and the bartender seem to change their stories from one thing to another after the incident occurred. The bartender said Mr. Hard was not visibly intoxicated until the police questioned him, then he changed his story. The Bible states in Isaiah 24:9 “Drinkers cannot escape the consequences when God judges” (ESV). And I believe that Mr. Hard should suffer his consequences for the death of Mr. White. Edward Hard has broken Gods commandment and should be punished for his actions during that night.

    Although Mr. Hard does not remember, it was his choice to drink and continue to consume more alcohol when he was becoming intoxicated. Mr. Edward was known to be a drunk, and it was stated in the trial, that he had been caught drinking and driving several times. Matthew 18:22 says, “Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you seven times, but seventy times seven” (ESV). In my own opinion, this means give someone a second chance, and obviously several were given to Mr. Hard. But how many second chances does one person deserve?

    In this case it was one too many because there was a death involved. Mr. Hard was a multi offender of this law and should have had an ignition interlock installed in his car for his offences. According to IgnitionInterlock. com, “States that require mandatory participation in the anti-DUI program with the installation of the car breathalyzer in your vehicle do so for the following offenses: multiple drunk driving events, committing a drunk driving event with a minor in the vehicle, and/or a confirmed excessive elevation of blood alcohol” (IgnitionInterlock).

    With Mr. Hard meeting one of these requirements, the state of Indiana should have taken action of this. If the state were to do so, Edward Hard’s car would have not started and he and Mr. White would be free till this day. With Biblical Worldview being involved, I believe that this was a reasonable way to handle the dispute. Even though Mrs. White is taking the case to court, she has a right to do so for her own benefit. In the Bible, we are told to forgive our enemies for their sins against us and each other.

    The reason I believe in this method, is because an action is being taken for something that has happened that is against God’s will, which in this case is intoxication and murder. If Mrs. Deborah White and the state of Indiana had taken a different approach to this situation and let Edward Hard go without punishment, he may have ended up harming someone else and possibly even taking away another life as well. Edward Hard committed multiple crimes on this one night that led to a death of an innocent individual.

    With consumption of so much alcohol in a short amount of time, this shows that Mr. Hard’s intoxication was the proximate cause of the accident and death to Mr. White. The Plaintiffs two lawyers took their research and evidence to perfection. They were able to do this by finding out about the bartender telling two different stories, how Edward Hard still loved Mrs. White, and about Mr. Hard’s drinking history. In today’s world, many people do not view God’s word into their daily lives, and could care less about what He says about drinking and other sins.

    As more and more people reject this concept, there will be more situations that involve drinking and driving and also deaths from the incident. So if each Christian can change one’s life by witnessing to a person in anyway and law enforcement can become stricter, the better we, as Christians, can make the world a better and safer place to live.


    TAADAS. (2000). Alcohol And BAC: Things You Need To Know. Retrieved from: http://www. taadas. org/factsheets/AlcoholBACFacts. htm Hill, Gerald N. , Kathleen T. (2005). The Free Dictionary: Summary Judgment.

    Retrieved from: http://legal-dictionary. thefreedictionary. com/Summary+Judgment Oddi, Marcia. (2007). Ind. Law – Indiana Dram Shop act penalties for serving intoxicated patrons. Retrieved from: http://indianalawblog. com/archives/2007/05/ind_law_indiana_32. html IgnitionInterlock. (2011). Ignition Interlock Laws and Car Breathalyzer Laws. Retrieved From: http://ignitioninterlock. com/consumer/iid-laws/ FindLaw. (2012). Underage DUI: Zero Tolerance Laws. Retrieved From: http://dui. findlaw. com/dui-laws-resources/underage-dui-zero-tolerance-laws. html. The Bible. (ESV).

    This essay was written by a fellow student. You may use it as a guide or sample for writing your own paper, but remember to cite it correctly. Don’t submit it as your own as it will be considered plagiarism.

    Need a custom essay sample written specially to meet your requirements?

    Choose skilled expert on your subject and get original paper with free plagiarism report

    Order custom paper Without paying upfront

    Courtroom Observation. (2017, Jan 20). Retrieved from

    Hi, my name is Amy 👋

    In case you can't find a relevant example, our professional writers are ready to help you write a unique paper. Just talk to our smart assistant Amy and she'll connect you with the best match.

    Get help with your paper
    We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you’re on board with our cookie policy