Day in Court Paper
I went to Suffolk Superior Court on 1st August, 2016 at 8:00 am, at court number 306. There were two sessions, 1: Rule of Hearing, Amaya Julian vs. Ritz Asia Inc Doing Business as Tausan Sushi et al 2: Conference to Review Status: Sole Technology v Kamaloop Boston LLC et al. Both cases were civil and related to medical. On the second case, the judge had a pre-trial conference with attorneys after the initial pleadings had been filed. This conference was useful for the judge to determine a period to conclude the pretrial activities. The judge encouraged settling of the second dispute through the conference by allowing the attorneys to review the proofs and clarify issues presented in the dispute. The case was however not settled and the judge had to set time for issue conference before setting a date for the trial. The clients presented by the attorneys in this case were absent after agreeing on stipulations by their attorneys.
On the dispute between Amaya Julian vs. Ritz Asia Inc Doing Business as Tausan Sushi et al, the judge had to examine evidences to settle on whether the defendant was to be legally responsible for the loss claimed by the plaintiff. In this case, the plaintiff had an opportunity to argue their cases with the hope that the judge will rule against the defendant. The defendant on the other hand had to use the opportunity to refute the case presented by the plaintiff and present evidences on the disputes. After presenting the case, the judge had to find whether the defendant was liable for the claimed loss and to what extent he had to pay.
The major phases comprised of choosing of the jury, then the opening statement, which were followed by testimony of the witnesses before cross-examination of these witnesses. Both teams were offered opportunity for closing arguments, before jury instruction, deliberation, and verdict were made. Since the case over Amaya Julian vs. Ritz Asia Inc Doing Business as Tausan Sushi et al was the first and had never been tried before a judge, there was need to select a jury. In this event, the judge together with the plaintiff and defendant’s attorneys questioned the pool of potential jurors on general matters and issues related to the case. The judge and the attorneys did not exclude the jurors. The opening statements came from the plaintiff’s and the defendant attorneys. There were no witnesses to testify at this point, neither was there any physical evidence displayed. Since the plaintiff had to prove the legal liability of the defendant, he was given the first chance to speak. The plaintiff presented facts pertaining to the case and the role of the defendant in causing great loses. The long statements were given in a somber mood to lay a civil judgment against the defendant. The defendant in this case had to wait the plaintiff to conclude before he could make his opening statement, a fact that was different from other civil cases. He gave his own interpretation of the facts and set of rebuttals to counter the main evidence of the plaintiff. He further presented affirmative defenses to the allegations. These statements were hard to hear from the attorneys, as they did not speak loud enough for everybody in the court to hear.
During the cross-examination and presentation of the witnesses’ testimonies, the plaintiff presented proofs to the jury to show the role the defendant played. Three witnesses, all professionals were called to strengthen the case. A medical laboratory report together with documentary evidence was also presented. All witnesses were sworn in by taking an oath to tell the truth, asked questions through direct examination to elicit information and strengthen the position of the parties in the case. The third witness was called for re-direct examination to manage some damaging effects earlier produced during the cross-examination. The defendant later presented his own proofs in a proactive approach to show that the company presented was not liable for the plaintiff’s loss. The plaintiff was offered an opportunity to counter the evidence and produce any new arguments. The judge though, loud, was friendly and was in a good mood, and tried to help in both cases. His good mood greatly contributed to the warm atmosphere in the courtroom and further encouraged both parties in both cases to work together and solve the problem. Before adjournment, of the case, the plaintiff and the defendant were offered opportunities to summarize their case and address the jury prior to deliberations.
The most interesting part in the cases was the substantive law issue, which dealt with possible charges a team will have to pay to complete the crime. The charges were heavy, ranging from USD 10 million to the plaintiff to closure of the company and payment of all the losses caused in the event of going through the cases. The prosecutor in these cases had a rough time to prove every element of crime in the disputes for conviction. This proved difficult as no substantive evidence was presented in the second case, compelling the judge to refer the case to a neutral third party before setting the date for trial. This move was welcomed, as both parties were not in a financial position to go through the trial and meet the entire cost. However, both parties seemed adamant to welcome this counsel.