Jonathan Harrr A Civil Action Analysis

The legal system of America exists for resolving disputes, maintaining order, and protecting various liberties and rights from violations or unreasonable intrusions by persons, organizations, or government. In Jonathan Harr’s A Civil Action, the formal moments of the Woburn case show how, in many cases, the legal system fails to promote justice, truth seeking, and fairness.
First and foremost, the adversarial nature of American law, specifically in civil cases, prevent the discovery of the truth. In the adversarial system, two sides clash head to head in front of a neutral fact finder and the idea is that the truth should tip the scale. The verdict in theory should be just and fair. The plaintiff and defendant in a lawsuit only seek the evidence …show more content…
In one of the judgements, Skinner even stated, “ordinarily I would have great deference for Facher,” enraging Schlichtmann. Additionally, Facher’s proposal of splitting the trial into two phases was readily adopted by Skinner with disregard towards Schlichtmann’s objection. However, the most inappropriate instance in the book was the ex parte conversation between Skinner and Facher. According to the American Bar Association, a judge shall not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications, or consider other communications made to the judge outside the presence of the parties or their lawyers, making the Skinner-Facher conversation a clear, unethical violation. The importance of these violations relates to the purpose of the judge: to be the neutral fact finder of the …show more content…
Theoretically, a jury is supposed to be fair and impartial. Both parties search for jury candidates that are insulated from biased media sources or lack identification to the victim. However, in the case of Woburn, after using up his peremptory challenges Schlichtmann had to settle with the jury members he was dealt. However, this selection very much affects the ability of jury members to decide upon a verdict. In Woburn, jury members readily went with the date Fox presented the group as to when the chemicals leaked into the water. This would have resulted in three families and crucial evidence being thrown out of the evidence, ultimately stating that the jury did not believe in the suffering of those families. Additionally, the jury directions hindered truth-seeking. This is evident in the questions that the jury had to answer in order to deliver a verdict. The technical and difficult questions revolved around the timing of the deposition of chemicals by each company. It can be argued that the timing of contamination if crucial in determining a timeline and implicating each company for the sickness of the children. However, the judge could have simply asked the jury members if they believed the defendants were guilty for dumping chemicals that reached the wells, because ultimately the companies did dump chemicals that harmed the lives of Woburn families. This, coupled