Stella Zhao
Mr. Struk
CLU3M1
13 January 2018
Verdict Rationale
In the case of R. v. O’Brien, the defendant which was O’Brien, was charged of two assaults. On June 12th, 2009, in the City of Yourtown, O’Brien committed an assault to Toby Fantasia who was doing policing duties in an undercover capacity and caused bodily harm to her. Also, in the same situation, O’Brien committed another assault to Toby Fantasia who was a peace officer on duty. After hearing the trial, I found out several mitigating factors which would prove why O’Brien should be acquitted and did not commit any of the crimes.
First of all, I think the credibility of both parties are very important as a mitigating factor for this case, especially the witnesses who should always …show more content…
Firstly, in the cross examination of Chris Ugarte, the defence attorney asked Ugarte about was she really sure that O’Brien could hear her yelling that they were police officers. In response, Ugarte seemed not sure and lowered her voice saying that she was not sure at that time too. That gives the jury a sense of feeling that Ugarte had been moved by the defence attorney and agreed to what the defence attorney said, which makes the jury to believe more in what the defence party says later on because even the person on the Crown’s side who was at the scene was not sure what happened. In like manner, when the defence attorney was asking Fantasia about the case of Friedbrain, Fantasia’s voice lowered and seemed not to be confident about what she was saying. In that case, even the witnesses are not sure what they saw at the scene, the jury could not believe what they …show more content…
He is just trying to stop a fight, that all. The first evidence is that at the scene, as soon as O’Brien saw the fight, he gave his phone to his fiancee to call 9-1-1. This shows that O’Brien did not want this fight to go on. He called the police to help him stop the fight but not hurting anyone. He was aware of police officers and did not want to interfere police duties. By the same token, after Ugarte pulled O’Brien off Fantasia, Ugarte told O’Brien that they are officers, and as soon as O’Brien saw her uniform, O’Brien stopped punching. Also, O’Brien had a bottle of wine when they were at the dinner that night. Then they decided to walk home rather than drive home. This was also a good behaviour of O’Brien not trying to violate any laws. Thus, the good behaviours of O’Brien that night would show the jury that O’Brien is just a good citizen who tried to stop a fight but wrongful interfered a police performing her
Mr. Struk
CLU3M1
13 January 2018
Verdict Rationale
In the case of R. v. O’Brien, the defendant which was O’Brien, was charged of two assaults. On June 12th, 2009, in the City of Yourtown, O’Brien committed an assault to Toby Fantasia who was doing policing duties in an undercover capacity and caused bodily harm to her. Also, in the same situation, O’Brien committed another assault to Toby Fantasia who was a peace officer on duty. After hearing the trial, I found out several mitigating factors which would prove why O’Brien should be acquitted and did not commit any of the crimes.
First of all, I think the credibility of both parties are very important as a mitigating factor for this case, especially the witnesses who should always …show more content…
Firstly, in the cross examination of Chris Ugarte, the defence attorney asked Ugarte about was she really sure that O’Brien could hear her yelling that they were police officers. In response, Ugarte seemed not sure and lowered her voice saying that she was not sure at that time too. That gives the jury a sense of feeling that Ugarte had been moved by the defence attorney and agreed to what the defence attorney said, which makes the jury to believe more in what the defence party says later on because even the person on the Crown’s side who was at the scene was not sure what happened. In like manner, when the defence attorney was asking Fantasia about the case of Friedbrain, Fantasia’s voice lowered and seemed not to be confident about what she was saying. In that case, even the witnesses are not sure what they saw at the scene, the jury could not believe what they …show more content…
He is just trying to stop a fight, that all. The first evidence is that at the scene, as soon as O’Brien saw the fight, he gave his phone to his fiancee to call 9-1-1. This shows that O’Brien did not want this fight to go on. He called the police to help him stop the fight but not hurting anyone. He was aware of police officers and did not want to interfere police duties. By the same token, after Ugarte pulled O’Brien off Fantasia, Ugarte told O’Brien that they are officers, and as soon as O’Brien saw her uniform, O’Brien stopped punching. Also, O’Brien had a bottle of wine when they were at the dinner that night. Then they decided to walk home rather than drive home. This was also a good behaviour of O’Brien not trying to violate any laws. Thus, the good behaviours of O’Brien that night would show the jury that O’Brien is just a good citizen who tried to stop a fight but wrongful interfered a police performing her