Name of the children's story or fairy tale upon which your trial will be based. Who are the major characters? What was the incident that will go to trial?
.
The children's story upon which the trial will be based is "The Three Little Pigs." The major characters include the three little pigs, Big Bad Wolf, and the judge.
The incident that will go to trial is the Big Bad Wolf being accused of attempting to destroy the houses of the three little pigs. Each pig built a different type of house - one of straw, one of sticks, and one of bricks - and the wolf huffed and puffed to try and blow them down. It will be up to the judge to determine whether the wolf is guilty of attempted destruction of property.
Type of case - Civil or Criminal? Explain which and why. (4 points)
This case would likely be considered a civil case rather than a criminal case. The incident involves property damage and potential harm to the three little pigs' homes, which are considered the pigs' private property. The wolf's actions could be seen as a civil wrong (tort) rather than a criminal offense.
In a criminal case, the focus is on punishing the offender for violating a criminal law and there is typically involvement of law enforcement and prosecution by the government. In a civil case, the focus is on resolving disputes between individuals or entities, seeking compensation for damages or seeking a court order to stop certain actions. In the case of the Three Little Pigs, the pigs would be seeking compensation for the damage caused to their homes by the wolf.
Evidence that the plaintiff or prosecuting attorney will introduce, including witnesses: (4 points)
1. The three little pigs themselves can testify as witnesses to the incident. They can describe how the Big Bad Wolf attempted to blow down their houses and caused damage to their property.
2. The materials used to construct the houses - straw, sticks, and bricks - can be introduced as physical evidence. This can help support the pigs' claims about the level of effort and care they put into building their homes.
3. Any surveillance footage or eyewitness testimony from other characters in the fairy tale who may have seen the incident unfold could be introduced as additional evidence.
4. Any expert witnesses, such as a construction expert or architect, could be called upon to testify about the structural integrity of the different types of houses and the likelihood of them being damaged by the wolf's actions.
Evidence that the defense attorney will introduce, including witnesses:(4 points)
1. The Big Bad Wolf can testify as a witness in his own defense. He can provide his perspective on the incident and explain his actions, potentially claiming that he did not have malicious intent or that he was simply trying to "talk" or play with the pigs.
2. The defense attorney may present evidence of the wolf's predatory nature and instincts, arguing that his actions were driven by hunger or instinct rather than with the intention of causing harm to the pigs or their property.
3. The defense attorney could introduce evidence of the wolf's previous encounters with other characters in fairy tales or folklore, suggesting a pattern of behavior that is consistent with his nature as a predator.
4. Any character witnesses who can attest to the wolf's character or behavior in other situations may be called upon to testify in support of his defense. This could include other fairy tale characters who have interacted with the wolf in the past.
Jury's verdict: Tell how the jury finds in the civil or criminal case and justify the verdict. How was the burden of proof met or not met? (4 points)
In the civil case of the Three Little Pigs vs. the Big Bad Wolf, the jury finds in favor of the three little pigs. The burden of proof in a civil case is typically lower than in a criminal case, requiring only a preponderance of the evidence to establish liability. In this case, the evidence presented by the plaintiffs, including the testimony of the three little pigs, the materials used to build the houses, and any eyewitness accounts or expert testimony, was sufficient to show that the wolf had indeed attempted to destroy the pigs' homes.
The jury may have determined that the wolf's actions constituted a tort of property damage, as he knowingly and intentionally attempted to blow down the pigs' houses, causing harm to their property. The defense's arguments regarding the wolf's nature and instincts may have been considered, but ultimately the evidence presented by the plaintiffs was more convincing.
Overall, the jury found that the burden of proof was met by the plaintiffs, as they were able to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the Big Bad Wolf was liable for the damages caused to the pigs' homes. As a result, the jury ruled in favor of the three little pigs in the civil case.