The development of new discovery rules allows each attorney in the case to access all the evidences that the opposite side proposes to present, except the work product of the opposing attorney. To Explain: The reason for not making opposite attorney’s work product available.

Question

Casey is on trial under criminal allegations that she engaged in fraudulent behavior at the company she manages. She is worried when the plaintiff alleges that it has "unambiguous proof" that Casey is guilty. Which of the following is most likely true? If the plaintiff provides proof only up to the level of "clear and convincing," Casey can still be acquitted. Casey need not worry about the plaintiff's evidence, since parties tend to boast about the level of proof they can establish anyway. If the plaintiff meets a "clear and convincing" burden of proof, Casey will be found guilty. The plaintiff will most likely prove Casey is guilty, since criminal charges only need to meet a prima facie burden of proof.

Answer 1

Question

Chapter 3, Problem 1BS

Summary Introduction

Case Summary: The development of new discovery rules allows each attorney in the case to access all the evidences that the opposite side proposes to present, except the work product of the opposing attorney.

To Explain: The reason for not making opposite attorney’s work product available.

Expert Solution & Answer

Trending nowThis is a popular solution!

See solution

Check out sample textbook solution

Students have asked these similar questions

Casey is on trial under criminal allegations that she engaged in fraudulent behavior at the company she manages. She is worried when the plaintiff alleges that it has "unambiguous proof" that Casey is guilty. Which of the following is most likely true? If the plaintiff provides proof only up to the level of "clear and convincing," Casey can still be acquitted. Casey need not worry about the plaintiff's evidence, since parties tend to boast about the level of proof they can establish anyway. If the plaintiff meets a "clear and convincing" burden of proof, Casey will be found guilty. The plaintiff will most likely prove Casey is guilty, since criminal charges only need to meet a prima facie burden of proof.

You are served with Plaintiff's complaint. Plaintiff is suing you! You are furious. Should you ignore Plaintiff's complaint and hope it goes away? Why or why not? What could possibly go wrong? If you do respond to Plaintiff's complaint, should you just deny all of Plaintiff's allegations so Plaintiff will go away, or include something else?

The burden of proof in civil cases is fairly low. Plaintiffs win if they are 51 percent convincing, and then they collect 100 percent of the damages. Is this result reasonable? Should plaintiffs in civil cases be required to prove their cases beyond a reasonable doubt instead of by the preponderance of the evidence? Or, if plaintiffs are only 51 percent convincing, should they get only 51 percent of the requested damages? Explain all the relevant concepts.