Introduction
The Judicial system of the United States of America is very complicated. People can come through several levels and spend a lot of time in courts to get the court decision. Sometimes, court cases can be remanded because of different reasons. Mostly, it happens because of the appearance of new facts, victims or evidence. Nevertheless, even if the decision was made and the court case closed, it does not mean that the court trial may not be remanded. When the state court (or any other type of court) made a decision, both sides of the court trial can appeal against the decision of the court. There are a number of reasons why people go to the appeal courts, one of which is dissatisfaction with the previous court decision. Still, it is impossible to come to the appeal court with the same documents. An additional investigation should be conducted. When new or supportive evidence and facts are gathered, or when some new information is accessible, people can boldly turn to the court of appeal with the hope that it will pass the other resolution. The main purpose of this paper is to analyze two reported cases that are relevant to the proceedings I attended. The chosen cases for analysis are Jones et al. v. Regents of the University of California and All One God Faith v. Organic & Sustainable Industry, which were conducted in one of the California Appellate Courts, the Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division One, in San Diego in April. Let us analyze the cases independently and then accomplish the final comparative analysis of these two cases.
Jones et al. v. Regents of the University of California Court Case Analysis
The first case I want to analyze is the Jones et al. v. Regents that took place on April 7, 2010, at the Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division One. The trial judge was Timothy F. Freer and counsel for the appellant was Jerry D. Whatley. Each party has appealed as the previous decision of the court trial did not satisfy any of the sides, as the previous decision was “ruled partly in favor of plaintiffs and partly in favor of the Regents” (Jones et al. v. Regents 1). Having turned to the court, the materials of the previous trial were considered and the new facts and reasons for remanding the case were stated.
While the court trial I was presents at, the two appealing sides presented their arguments to convince the court to take up necessary for each side’s position. The court was aware of the background information on the previous court trial and of the decision that was made. According to the procedure rules, the court gave a floor to both participants of the procedure. Being present at the court on this trial, it was possible for me to hear the whole situation and its development.
When the trial began, I saw the bailiff who represented the members of the court trial. The plaintiffs, Lesley Emmington Jones and four others were honored to take the floor first. Their appeal was directed to two issues, the project alternatives that could be followed and could reduce the influence of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory on the environment, and the negative water quality impacts.
Listening to the plaintiffs, it was understood that they are sure in their position that was supported with documents. Using the Environment impact report and Long-range development plan, the plaintiffs tried to convince the court the Regents violated the California Environment Quality Act. Listening to convictions, accusations and facts that were declared, I noticed that plaintiffs tried to relate their case to some other similar where the decision was turned to the concerned citizens. For example, plaintiffs tried to rely on the Save Our Residential Environment v. City of West Hollywood case (Save Our Residential Environment v. City). In spite of the fact that these attempts were not successful and the court did not take notice of these cases, the situation caught my attention.
Considering different court trials that took place in absolutely different places and time, I usually noticed some regular occurrence: in a number of cases plaintiffs tried to relate the courts’ opinion to the previous cases where the situation was alike. Still, it is possible to notice that there is no similar situation and the evidence and other facts in different court trials are always different. It is impossible to demand satisfying the appeal only because the court on the similar (but not the same) situation was satisfied. Doing such action, most plaintiffs hope that the jury will satisfy the appeal only because the previous jury did it. Such a decision can be provided only in cases when the jury is either unsure of their abilities or can be easily influenced emotively.
Following the case further, it made me think that the research of the plaintiffs was not full. There was a feeling of some incompleteness. They used different techniques, offered different documents to support their words that were extremely important in the court procedure. Still, when the convincing side became silent there was the impression that a great many things were left aside.
The regents’ appeal was focused on that part of the previous court decision that violated the California Environment Quality Act via amending the draft of the environmental impact report. The draft was not complete and the court did not have any reasons to amend it. Still, even though the whole speech of the appellant was based on this idea, there was a feeling that a great amount of work was done. The Regent’s speech was strict and rather influential. The judge asked a number of questions to regents but all the answers were constructional and to the point.
The jury’s decision was predictable. The previous decision in favor of both sides was not supported with strong reasons. The decision of the appellate court was in favor of the regents. Still, it may be predicted that it is not the last trial with these two participants as concerned citizens will always be dissatisfied with the actions of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory as they still provide some effect on the environment. If I were the judge I would remittitur the case and conduct the investigation deeper.
Attending the case trial, plenty of interesting facts became familiar to me. First of all, I saw how attorneys responded to judges’ questions and how they behaved. Furthermore, the very court procedure and the behavior of the trial members were analyzed. The appellants’ techniques were also considered, as this is extremely useful information that will surely come in hand to me.
All One God Faith v. Organic & Sustainable Industry Court Case Analysis
All One God Faith v. Organic and Sustainable Industry is the other case I was lucky to attend. The main participants of the trial were the judge John E. Munter, David Greene and James R. Wheaton for defendant and appellant, Farella Braun & Martell, John L. Cooper and Morgan T. Jackson, for plaintiff and appellant. The procedure took place in The Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division One, 750 “B” Street, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92101.
The case was really interesting as it touched the modern problem of advertising misleading, unfair market competition and other marketing notions which bother many people. The appeal was preceded by long and complicated court trials where different parts managed to present their opinion and win judges’ attention. The main problem for appeal was that All One God Faith, Inc. accused Organic and Sustainable Industry Standards, Inc. of the violation of market rules. The defeating company wanted to define the word “organic” in such a way that it should be understood as related to beauty and cosmetic preparations. Still, the main accusation to the side of the Organic and Sustainable Industry Standards (OASIS) Company is that it wants all the companies that deal with cosmetics of the type and use the word “organic” on their products to replace it with “OASIS products”. All One God Faith, Inc. states on the illegal actions and wants to appeal to the court to send the trial to remittitur. After the court procedure, I was interested in the background information and tried to search for the presiding trials. To my surprise, there were a lot of court trials, the first of which was of the same nature, Dr. Bronner wanted to provide injunctive relief against OASIS and some other competitors as they used the word “organic” on their products that were unfair.
The court procedure was conducted as follows, the bailiff introduced the members of the court procedure and the matter of dispute. All One God Faith, Inc’s attorney was the first to speak as he was a plaintiff. The main focus of the discussion was whether OASIS conducted “act in furtherance of a person’s right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public issue” (All One God Faith v. Organic 9). Being present at the final, I managed to listen to the closing speeches of the plaintiff and defendant.
What impressed me more is the emotional atmosphere that was in the courtroom when these two sides delivered their speeches. The effect on the auditory was magnificent. When the plaintiff spoke, the courtroom seemed to be on his side and it was an impression that he managed to convince the judge. But, when the defendant was given an opportunity to speak, his words were so convincing and stirring that the audience seemed to change sides. This was one of the most effective court trials I was lucky to visit. I tried to follow all, the speech and intonation, the stressed words, gestures and behavior, pauses and other moments in the opponents’ speech. This was the greatest information I could get as the ability to convince is one of the most important qualities a person dealing with the law sphere may have.
Turning to the main closing arguments of the sides, it is possible to mention that All One God Faith, Inc’s attorney firmly stood on the position that OASIS wanted to occupy the advertising marketing in an illegal way. The companies who deal with the cosmetics products on an organic basis will have to advertise the OASIS for free. All One God Faith dwelled much on unfair competition and misleading advertising. The company tried to follow the law on misleading advertising and present all the necessary arguments and facts to prove its rightness. First of all, when accusing a company of misleading advertising, the plaintiff should present the court with this advertising, product or other issues that suggest the idea of false advertising. Second, the signs of deception should be shown from the side of the convicted company. Furthermore, it is crucial to identify the target audience and the information on how this audience is going to be injured (False Advertising).
The OASIS explained away the actions via filing a special motion. The illegal deny of this motion was the main issue that the OASIS wanted to cancel. The OASIS tried to use the Federal Organic Food Production Act of 1990 that regulates the norms of organic products. The document strictly regulates only organic food, leaving the other organic products of personal use for personal consideration (Federal Organic Food Production Act).
If I were the lawyer on this court trial, I would gather my thoughts and courage and would try to be much convincing as possible. It is not a secret that there are a number of actions, gestures and words that influence people’s reactions. Being a lawyer, I would do all possible to gain the jury over.
Comparison Analysis
Comparing these two trials it is possible to relate to a number of issues. First of all, the court trials deal with absolutely different spheres. The Jones et al. v. Regents court trial is connected with the environmental problem. Jones with other concerned citizens, as well as the other side of the conflict, were dissatisfied with the decision that was made by the previous judge and appealed to the higher authority. The sitting of the court I visited was in the middle of the process and the opponents presented their personal opinions on the situations, providing the jury with the facts and evidence trying to be as much specific and argumentative as they could apply to common sense and analytical thinking.
The other case that was discussed in the paper was connected with the marketing notions. The participants were quarreling about the honest competition and advertising. One part of the case accused the other of unfair competition and misleading advertising. The OASIS wanted to make a commercial on the word “organic” and to make all the companies that work in the related sphere instead of “organic” write “OASIS organic”. The main argument the OASIS provided was that it was not forbidden by governmental regulations. Having visited this court trial, I saw the strong emotional influence on the audience it was the final one where the participants presented their closing speeches.
One of the main differences in these court trials is the way of influence the participants tried to implement. In the first case, both the plaintiffs and the defendants tried to be argumentative and apply to the jury’s thinking abilities and opportunities to follow the lawful case. The participants presented different evidence in the documentary form. In the other case, the participants mostly wanted to accomplish the emotional influence. With the help of different speaking techniques, gestures and psychological and behavioral tricks, the plaintiff and defendant tried to influence the emotional and sensory aspects of the jury’s perception
Still, being so different in the procedure, topic and way of influence, there is one common feature in these two trials. The decision made by the court is sure to influence society. In the first case, society is closely connected to the decision as the environmental problem is the problem of the whole of mankind. The Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory’s activities were rather harmful to nature, in Jones and four others’ opinion. They are sure that in case of them lose the quality of water will be reduced and it may lead to the fact that it will be even harmful.
Turning to the other case, All One God Faith v. Organic & Sustainable Industry, it is necessary to mention that the advertizing is the social sphere that is directed to society. Having its own target audience, the company will provide negative influence on people. Moreover, people will not even feel that influence. This is the opinion of the All One God Faith Company.
Furthermore, there is one more fact that can be related to similar ones if to consider these two cases. These are not first-hand trials, each of them has background information and court trials with the jury decisions. This peculiarity deals with the fact that the suit was registered in one of the California Appellate Courts that deal with the trials where the decision is made but according to the law, both plaintiffs and defendant may turn to the court again and appeal against the decision of the court. Thus, it may be stressed that two trials with absolutely different situations and subjects can be compared in such a way that similar points may be found.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the paper is devoted to the analysis and comparison of two court trials that are not connected to each other. These two trials were conducted in one of the California Appellate Courts, the Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division One in San Diego. The chosen cases for analysis are Jones et al. v. Regents of the University of California and All One God Faith v. Organic & Sustainable Industry. The legal subjects are different as well as the participants, still, there are a number of different common features that were noticed. Having visited these two court trials, I learn a great deal of information that will be useful for me in the future. First, I got to know how to present evidence and behave in case of asked me an unpleasant question in court. Furthermore, there is a feeling that I have attended the masterclasses on the subject of how to influence people. Visiting the court trials is a great opportunity to see how the theory we learn in class embodies in practice in the courtroom.
Works Cited
All One God Faith v. Organic & Sustainable Industry (2010) Super. Ct. No. CGC-08-474701. Court report. Web.
False Advertising. Cornell University Law School. Web.
Federal Organic Food Production Act of 1990 w/ Amendments. 2004. Web.
Jones et al. v. Regents of the University of California (2010) Super. Ct. No. RG07341224. Court report. Web.
Save Our Residential Environment v. City of West Hollywood (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1745. Web.