What about rhetorical tactics that hinder the other sides


Answer the following Questions of the Book:- "A Civil Action".

1. In a trial like the one described in A Civil Action, rhetoric plays an enormous part in a lawyer's ultimate success or failure. Is this fair? What about rhetorical tactics that hinder the other side's presentation of evidence, like Facher's repeated objections? Do all of these courtroom tactics finally serve to reveal or to obscure the truth?

2. Donna Robbins believes that she and her fellow plaintiffs have succeeded in teaching corporate America a lesson; Reverend Young, on the other hand, thinks that the Grace executives and attorneys have reason to celebrate. With which of these opinions do you agree? Does the final settlement represent a victory, a loss, or a compromise?

3. Is res judicata-- the principle that a judgment must remain once it has been decided in court, even in the face of new and conflicting evidence-- a reasonable or an unreasonable principle?

4. Do you find Schlichtmann's dealings with the eight Woburn families to have been sufficiently fair and honest? Was the case taken out of the plaintiffs' hands, and, if so, was such a method essential for an efficient prosecution? Anne Anderson believed that Schlichtmann was patronizing toward the Woburn families, kept them from having any control over their own case, and used them "simply as a vehicle for his own ambition, for his own fame and fortune" [p. 453]. Do you agree with any of her complaints?

Solution Preview :

Prepared by a verified Expert
English: What about rhetorical tactics that hinder the other sides
Reference No:- TGS01531695

Now Priced at $5 (50% Discount)

Recommended (93%)

Rated (4.5/5)