Get Instant Help From 5000+ Experts For

Writing: Get your essay and assignment written from scratch by PhD expert

Rewriting: Paraphrase or rewrite your friend's essay with similar meaning at reduced cost

Editing:Proofread your work by experts and improve grade at Lowest cost

And Improve Your Grades
Phone no. Missing!

Enter phone no. to receive critical updates and urgent messages !

Attach file

Error goes here

Files Missing!

Please upload all relevant files for quick & complete assistance.

Guaranteed Higher Grade!
Free Quote
Case Analysis: Reckless Driving and the Conviction of James Clarke

Overview of the Case

You will begin by telling the jury that this really is a very simple case and that if they consider the evidence in a logical way and apply their good common sense, they will undoubtedly find that the charge against James Clarke has been proven. You will say that the evidence against James Clark speaks for itself. You will remind the jury that two witnesses heard the accused state his intention to send the vehicle through the intersection. Two witnesses saw him get a stick that would do the job. One eyewitness saw him place the stick so that the vehicle would careen uncontrolled down the street. As a result of this act, two innocent people lost their lives. You will point out that the lives of the victims’ family will never be the same.
You will say that those witnesses’ testimonies are backed up by the evidence of Anne Thomas, who saw a long-haired youth running from the scene, and by the evidence of Dr. Elizabeth Boersma, who found the accused’s fingerprints on the steering wheel. You will point out to the jury that neither of these witnesses had any reason to lie.
You will agree with defence counsel that what happened was an unfortunate tragedy. But you will remind the jury that this tragedy was not inevitable; two innocent people lost their lives because of a reckless act. You will tell the jury that you are sure that they will use their common sense to analyze the evidence and come to the right conclusion by convicting James Clarke.

You will tell the jury that this case boils down to betrayal. Jamie Clarke was betrayed by his girlfriend and his best friend, who committed an unspeakable act, and then pointed the finger at him.
You will remind the jury that the only people who actually place Jamie Clarke at the scene of the accident are Cora-Lee Moore and Kristoph Hawkley. You will remind them that Ally Block saw Jamie leaving the McDonald’s without Cora-Lee and Kristoph. You will point out that no witness could positively say that they had seen Jamie at the scene. You will point out that both Cora-Lee and Kristoph had reasons to blame the crime on Jamie; Cora-Lee was angry at him because of a fight they had recently had, and Kristoph was trying to avoid blame for killing two innocent people. In a clever, indirect way, you  8 will imply that Cora-Lee is a spurned girlfriend looking for revenge, and that Kristoph is a criminal looking for a way out.
Jamie Clarke did not cause this unfortunate tragedy. He was at home, in bed when the accident happened. You will remind the jury that if they have a reasonable doubt as to Jamie Clarke’s guilt, they must acquit him. You will say that more importantly, they must acquit him because Jamie Clarke is innocent. You will say that the only reason he is in court today is because he chose the wrong type of friends.

sales chat
sales chat