Courtroom Observsation

1493 words 6 pages
“You be the Judge”
Week 5 Courtroom Observation Paper Research
BUSI 301 Liberty University

Indiana Northern District Court
Judges: Chief Justice Raymond, Brown, Uphold, Batten, Grambo, Wray, Bryant, Cross and Allen
Case Number: 80a14-5352-vc804
Plaintiff: Debora White
Plaintiff Representatives: Ashley Gavin and Jackson Riley
Defendant: O’Malley’s Tavern and Patrick Gibbs
Defendant Representatives: Xander Barden and Katelyn Lippa

Defendant Council Overview:
Xander Barden and Katelyn Lippa are the defendant’s (O’Malley’s Tavern and Patrick Gibbs) representatives they are recommending the Court present an outline verdict to the bartender, John Daniels and O’Malley’s Tavern. There is definite
…show more content…

Patrick Gibbs.
Plaintiff Council Overview:
Ashley Gavin and Jackson Riley are Mrs. Debora White’s representatives. Mr. Barden states that Mr. John Daniels, the bartender did not have any awareness of the intoxication. (Jackson v. Gore, 634 N.E.2d 503, 506 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) In the Jackson v. Gore case it was stated that actual awareness can be obtained over sufficient point in time. In that particular case it was five hours of examination from the bartender, whereas in this case it was only two hours of interaction that Mr. John Daniels had with Mr. Edward Hard. (Fast Eddie's v. Hall, 688 N.E.2d 1270, (Ind.Ct.App.1997). The case known as Fast Eddie’s v. Hall was lost due to the obstruction of the bartender. The State of Indiana concluded that the case should include a jury and trial when the case involves an immediate cause that has many end results on reliable facts. The details concerning the bartender in this case was that Mr. John Daniels was recorded stating that Mr. Bruno White was not intoxicated to changing the story to he was intoxicated with minutes this change was recorded. Mr. John Daniels saw Mr. Edward Hard initiate the altercation with Mr. Bruno White this report was made to an officer investigating the crime. Since there are multiple conclusions with enough evidence the judgment should not be settled. Immediate cause with interferences which allows the jury to