Our orders are delivered strictly on time without delay 
If a car dealership in New York sold a car to a person, and that person two years later got into a car accident in Oklahoma, would it be fair for the car dealer to be subject to Oklahoma State court jurisdiction? Why or why not?
Do you think Courts should permit evidence about a defendant’s propensity to commit bad acts? Why or why not?
What do you think about the Judge’s ability to issue a “judgment notwithstanding a verdict”? Is this a wise check on juries or does it raise the potential for abuses of power? Why or why not?
Sample Answer
Jurisdiction in Car Accident Case
In the scenario presented, where a car dealership in New York sold a car to a person who later got into a car accident in Oklahoma, it would not be fair for the car dealer to be subject to Oklahoma State court jurisdiction. Here’s why:
Lack of Sufficient Minimum Contacts: For a court to have jurisdiction over a defendant, there must be sufficient minimum contacts between the defendant and the state in which the court is located. In this case, the car dealership is located in New York and conducted the sale of the car there. The accident occurred in Oklahoma, which is outside the jurisdiction of the car dealership. The mere fact that a car sold by the dealership was involved in an accident in another state does not establish the necessary minimum contacts to subject the car dealer to Oklahoma State court jurisdiction.
Lack of Purposeful Availment: To establish personal jurisdiction, there must be evidence that the defendant purposefully availed themselves of the privileges and benefits of conducting business in the state where the court is located. In this case, the car dealer did not purposefully avail themselves of doing business in Oklahoma. Their sale of the car was conducted in New York, and they did not have any control or involvement in the subsequent use or operation of the vehicle in Oklahoma.
Inconvenience and Fairness: Subjecting the car dealer to Oklahoma State court jurisdiction would be unfair and inconvenient for the defendant. It would require them to defend themselves in a court located far away from their place of business, potentially causing significant logistical and financial burdens.
In conclusion, it would not be fair for the car dealer to be subject to Oklahoma State court jurisdiction in this scenario due to the lack of sufficient minimum contacts, absence of purposeful availment, and considerations of inconvenience and fairness.
Permitting Evidence of Propensity to Commit Bad Acts
Courts should generally not permit evidence about a defendant’s propensity to commit bad acts. Here’s why:
Presumption of Innocence: The legal system operates under the premise that defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Introducing evidence about a defendant’s propensity to commit bad acts undermines this presumption and unfairly biases jurors against the defendant.
Relevance and Prejudice: Evidence of propensity is often not directly relevant to the specific charges or issues being tried. Such evidence tends to inflame emotions and prejudice jurors against the defendant, leading to unfair outcomes.
Risk of Unfair Convictions: Allowing evidence of propensity can lead to wrongful convictions based on character assassination rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It opens the door for jurors to make decisions based on personal biases rather than objective evidence.
Alternative Means of Proving Guilt: Courts should focus on evidence directly related to the charges at hand rather than relying on character evidence. There are various other ways to establish guilt, such as eyewitness testimony, forensic evidence, and expert opinions.
In exceptional cases where propensity evidence is highly relevant and probative, it may be admissible under strict standards and limitations set by the court. However, in general, courts should exercise caution in admitting propensity evidence to ensure fairness and uphold the principles of justice.
“Judgment Notwithstanding a Verdict”
The judge’s ability to issue a “judgment notwithstanding a verdict” serves as a necessary check on juries and helps prevent potential abuses of power. Here’s why:
Correction of Errors: Juries are composed of laypeople who may make mistakes or misinterpret legal standards during deliberations. The judge, being an expert in the law, is better equipped to identify legal errors or inconsistencies in the jury’s verdict. Issuing a judgment notwithstanding a verdict allows the judge to correct these errors and ensure justice is served.
Legal Standards Interpretation: Judges have the responsibility to interpret and apply legal standards correctly. If a jury reaches a verdict that is inconsistent with established legal principles or unsupported by the evidence presented at trial, the judge can intervene to rectify any miscarriage of justice.
Balancing Judicial Discretion: The power to issue a judgment notwithstanding a verdict must be exercised judiciously and in accordance with legal standards. Judges should respect the role of juries as fact-finders and only intervene when there are clear errors or substantial injustice that would result from accepting the jury’s verdict.
Protection Against Bias or Misconduct: In cases where there may be concerns about juror bias or misconduct, allowing judges to issue a judgment notwithstanding a verdict provides an additional safeguard against potential abuses or prejudiced decisions.
In conclusion, the judge’s ability to issue a judgment notwithstanding a verdict is a wise check on juries because it allows for correction of errors, ensures adherence to legal standards, and safeguards against potential biases or misconduct that may arise during jury deliberations. However, judges must exercise this power with caution and respect for the role of juries in the legal system.
