Unique functions of a trial court
All trial courts only hold trials on cases. As opposed to appellate courts, trial courts always have jurisdiction over the original case. This simply implies that the trial courts are responsible for hearing a case for the first time it is taken for trial in a court. Appellate courts only hear appeals from individuals or groups of people who had previously gone to a trial court or any other lower court. It is only in trial courts that one would expect to find the jury. The jury is expected to find the facts linking to the case (Walker, 1980).
In the case of Woburn, the trial court could only address the issue brought up about the contamination of the town’s drinking water. The court could only try the case by using the facts. If the court found that the companies caused the contamination, then the companies would be found guilty. Anything beyond that would have to be handled in the court of appeal.
The preponderance of the evidence
The term preponderance of the evidence means that the side that would provide greater evidence concerning the case would lead either the judge or the jury to take one side as opposed to the other. This means that the side that provides evidence that is more convincing would be favored. A mere preponderance is not as heavy as having truth beyond reasonable doubt which is the burden of proof in a criminal court. This difference in the burden of proof in civil and criminal trials is due to the assurance of the conviction.
In criminal court, the conviction must be certain but in a civil court, the trial might require more hearing in an appellate court (Walker, 1980). This difference might be due to the differences in remedies available in the different courts. It was easy for the plaintiffs to prove their case because the evidence was clear. The water contained the deadly chemicals that were being emitted during the companies’ production process.
The truth
When Facher said that the truth was at the bottom of a bottomless pit, he meant that the trial was an unreliable method of finding the truth. He believed that the truth did not only lie in the chemicals that were found in the water. He believed that the truth was found somewhere beyond the evidence provided in court against the companies. However, he was not correct when he suggested that because the truth is always based on evidence.
The concerns of Schlichmann
Schlichmann was so concerned when the judge did not allow his clients to go to the witness stand to recount their stories of the illness and death of their children before he could listen to the experts. Schlichmann was not impressed because he was concerned that the judge might give the opposing side a chance to provide strong evidence against his case. In other words, the experts had expert opinions on the root cause of death and the possibility that the cause of death might have been due to other reasons. The experts could also convince the court that the reason why the chemicals were found in the water was not due to their act of negligence but out of reasons beyond the company’s control.
Schlichmann was mostly worried that he would lose the case over the opposition just because he did not have expert knowledge in medicine. The experts were knowledgeable and could convince the jury to find the companies innocent of the charges.
References
Walker, D. (1980). The oxford companion to law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.