The case I chose is No. 163 Killon v Parrotta from Septeember 15,2016 Court of Appeals – Oral Arguments Archive (state.ny.us)   The argument I observed was between Killon respondent and Parrotta the appellant located in the court of appeals state of New York. Killon was saying that the Appellate Division did an error when reaching its decision based on the case that was presented to them. That they didn’t look at the previous cases evidence and facts to it just made a decision based on what was presented to them originally. Another reason is not taking in acknowledgment who the initial aggressor was. Parrota disagrees says the court maybe didn’t see the full facts but still believes the one who was concluded as the initial aggressor was in fact the initial aggressor was correct in there veridiction.

Well I really can’t say much of the case because I don’t fully understand it for example what didn’t the appellate division not see that made the case invalid in the eyes of Killon. I found it surprising how Killon and I can be wrong mentioned previous cases and how they were resolved intertwining to make a point. As well as the remedy for the verdict to be reinstated. The judges and lawyers job was interesting one I couldn’t hear so well maybe she was sick. The other sometimes interrupted which they can do at any time but I think they should waited to see maybe they get to their question. They conducted themselves as very professional and people who aren’t their to play to hear what they got to say and why they believe such thing as well as kind of serious and mean. I found Parrota arguments more persuasive even though I couldn’t really understand what he meant at the beginning confusing me if he agreed with Killon or no about facts and evidence. I liked what he said of who could be the initial aggressor and why stating his reason and facts why Killon is wrong with that point.