Abstract
This paper describes the features of the 1998 trial in the United States, which was named People v. Saavedra-Rodriguez. The involvement of third parties in the general process of crime requires serious consideration of laws as well as similar cases in the history of jurisprudence. The essay will deal with the nuances of both prosecution and defense arguments and the importance of a rational approach to the correct verdict. The importance of the topic stemmed from the need to improve the United States judicial system. Considering practical examples from the history of jurisprudence is a crucial tool for considering various shortcomings and indicating necessary improvements. In addition, the essay will discuss possible alternative decisions of this case supported by another similar example of trial from history called Saavedra-Rodriguez v. United States.
Introduction
Many court cases in the history of law have influenced the profession’s future not only in the short but in the long term. One such case is the litigation called People v. Saavedra-Rodriguez. The crime that led to the trial occurred in 1994, on 9 September (En, 1998). A man named Patricio Saavedra-Rodriguez, stabbed Pedro Avila in the chest, in connection with which the latter was sent to the hospital. The Case of People v. Saavedra-Rodriguez is a striking example of how a third party to an event can significantly doubt the rationality of the final verdict.
Facts
In this case, the defendant, Saavedra-Rodriguez, was convicted in the murder of the person. After his stroke, the victim had a wound that needed urgent treatment. According to En (1998), “according to the autopsy, the victim died of a stab wound that penetrated approximately four and one-half inches into the victim’s chest cavity” (p. 1). However, despite the severity of the wound, doctors Claman and Wikholm did not take the necessary steps to treat it. As a result, Pedro Avila died in the hospital. It is important to emphasize that the victim was conscious upon arrival at the hospital and even had the opportunity to communicate with the medical staff (En, 1998). Due to this fact, the defendant wanted to raise an intervening cause defense. However, convincing arguments of the prosecution persuaded the judge, and the jury to his side, and Saavedra-Rodriguez lost the trial.
Decision
The final verdict for Saavedra-Rodriguez was his conviction, and he was charged with second-degree murder. The main twist in the case was that the prosecution insisted that despite the ill-treatment of the victim in the hospital, the accused could not be acquitted because Saavedra-Rodriguez inflicted a deep wound on the victim (En, 1998). In turn, the defense insisted on considering specific facts regarding the treatment of Pedro Avila. As En (1998) states, “Dr. Wikholm made several errors in his diagnosis and treatment of the victim” (p. 1). However, the court ruled that the defense arguments were minor, and the most crucial factor was that without medical care, the patient would have died (En, 1998). Consequently, the defendant was found guilty of manslaughter.
Alternative Solution
In my opinion, the verdict that the court handed down to the defendant Saavedra-Rodriguez was correct rather than not. However, as an alternative solution, I would suggest a more detailed review of medical records regarding the health status of Pedro Avila. Perhaps, when taking into account all the facts about Dr. Wikholm’s mistakes in treating the wound, the court would have complete information about the doctor’s role in this situation. As a case to support my solution, I will cite Saavedra-Rodriguez v. United States as an example. It is the trial in which the defendant was charged with possessing a firearm of another murder. However, the court’s unwillingness to consider the case details led to a failure to consider that the defendant had not committed a crime with a firearm.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is essential to emphasize that the case of People v. Saavedra-Rodriguez is illustrative in the history of the United States court. Different circumstances can significantly complicate sentencing decisions. However, professional judges and jurors can make correct decisions and learn from history, despite the relatively logical arguments of the defender.
Reference
En Banc. (1998). People v. Saavedra-Rodriguez, 971 P. 2d 223 – Colo: Supreme court 1998. Supreme Court of Colorado.