Example Of Kenneth Ravenel V. Frederick L. Burnett Case Study

Kenneth Ravenel v. Fredrick L. Burnett (Case study)
Kenneth Ravenel v. Fredrick L. Burnett (Case study)
Under the field of criminal law, the case, Kenneth RAVENEL v. Fredrick L. BURNETT [2070401], September 26, 2008, under the Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, exemplifies conflict resolution. As an example, it entailed the requisite steps in which conflict may be resolved, in addition to the practicability of their applications. The case in point pertained to the claim by Burnett that Ravenel had threatened him with malicious harm, because of suspecting the former of being in an affair with his wife. With things getting out of hand, Burnett had sought legal redress, the result of which was a warrant of arrest of Ravenel. The charge was that of harassment, as had been provided by Burnett. Ravenel, as the defendant, later filed a civil action suit against Burnett, alleging that this arrest warrant and resultant prosecution were malicious.
The arrest warrant was based on a single statement, alleging the former’s threats to Burnett while in church, which resulted in Ravenel paying a bond of $500. Burnett denied these claims, instead filling a motion aimed at gaining a summary judgment. Ravenel later filed a motion to either amend or alter the judgment based on a trial court hearing, based on the motion of compelled discovery, which was denied. From the above, the issue at hand was that Ravenel argued on the trial court’s error, with respect to entering Burnett’s summary judgment appeal. This was based on the argument that genuine issues, especially pertaining to material facts needed to be considered. Of particular importance was whether Burnett, as the complainant had probable cause, or whether the complaint was out of malice against Ravenel.
According to criminal law, important steps to be enacted, with regard to conflict resolution includes the filing of a complaint, as showcased by Burnett’s action. This is especially if there is physical, written or spoken evidence. There would be followed by the need to verify if the evidence presented was substantial in nature, to warrant any other proceedings: arrest and court hearing. The defendant, Ravenel, also has the legal right to file a reversal of the same, especially in the case that there is no substantial evidence. In addition, is the fact that such cases often may be due to intent of malice against the defendant, thereby necessitating either a civil action suit or a total withdrawal of the legal suit. If there is an aspect of a continuance of a court hearing and/ or a motion filed towards compelled discovery, the court may decide whether or not to pursue such a lead.
When faced with such a situational context as aforementioned, there is need to follow the right procedural measures, which being evidence-based, provide the best possible solutions. The case in question regards a conflict between two individuals, each having personal concerns, as well as evidence to prove the other’s wrongdoing. It is the goal of a court of law, to scrutinize all evidence/ facts brought to it, from both parties before any judgment is passed. First, would be the need to substantiate the prevailing evidence, from both sides. This is to be followed by procedural measures, where courts of law are involved, with these providing the final judgment. This is according to existing criminal/civil law, as practiced within a given legal jurisdiction. Finally, would be to decide on which aspects hold ground, thereby proving the defendant guilty or not.