Law
You are either the prosecutor or the defense lawyer faced with the following scenarios and issues.
Boobie Clark hit a defenseless player in the back during a during a football game, after the play; and was sued in Court; Deshaun Watson was accused of over 25 counts of sexual assault, all off the football field and settled out of court; Ron Artest went into the stands to hit a spectator after the game, but not the one who threw a bottle at him; Calvin Klein walked onto the Court during the middle of the game to talk to a player (Latrell Sprewell); and I “accidently” threw my friend to the ground while playing basketball in the school yard.
There is no right or wrong answer, just ones that do, or do not analyze and apply the materials we have learned.
Answer:
- Boobie Clark hitting a defenseless player during a football game:
- Prosecutor: The prosecutor may argue that Boobie Clark’s action was intentional, violent, and not a part of the game, constituting assault. They could present evidence such as video footage, witness testimonies, and medical reports to prove the extent of harm caused to the victim.
- Defense Lawyer: The defense lawyer might argue that football is a contact sport, and such incidents can occur unintentionally in the heat of the game. They could try to show that Boobie Clark’s action was not premeditated, and that it falls within the boundaries of acceptable conduct in the sport.
- Deshaun Watson’s sexual assault allegations settled out of court:
- Prosecutor: The prosecutor may point out that the fact that the case was settled out of court does not necessarily mean innocence and may still present the evidence available and witness testimonies to support the allegations.
- Defense Lawyer: The defense lawyer may argue that settling out of court does not imply guilt and that Deshaun Watson may have chosen to settle to avoid further publicity or legal expenses. They could also raise questions about the credibility of the accusers and the evidence presented.
- Ron Artest’s involvement in an altercation with a spectator after a game:
- Prosecutor: The prosecutor may argue that Ron Artest’s actions were aggressive and dangerous, resulting in a breach of public order and safety. They could present evidence such as video footage and eyewitness accounts to demonstrate the severity of the incident.
- Defense Lawyer: The defense lawyer may claim that Ron Artest acted in the heat of the moment, provoked by the hostile atmosphere in the stands, and may try to show that he did not intend to harm a specific spectator but was reacting to the overall situation.
- Calvin Klein walking onto the court during a game to talk to a player:
- Prosecutor: Depending on the circumstances, the prosecutor may argue that Calvin Klein’s actions disrupted the game and posed a safety risk to players and officials. They could assert that such behavior is unacceptable and should be punished accordingly.
- Defense Lawyer: The defense lawyer might contend that Calvin Klein’s intentions were benign, and he did not intend to disrupt the game or cause any harm. They may try to emphasize his lack of harmful intent and any positive motivations behind his actions.
- Accidentally throwing a friend to the ground while playing basketball in the school yard:
- Prosecutor: Depending on the severity of the injury, the prosecutor may argue that the act was reckless and constituted negligence, potentially leading to charges of assault or battery.
- Defense Lawyer: The defense lawyer might argue that the action was accidental and that there was no intention to cause harm. They could emphasize the absence of any malicious intent and any evidence showing that the incident was a genuine accident.
Please note that legal analysis and outcomes can be highly dependent on specific details, applicable laws, and jurisdictional rules. The scenarios provided are simplified and lack crucial contextual information, which can significantly impact how they are handled in court.
