The results by doing this would be important to the case because it would ensure that the jurors would be able to remain unbiased and objective throughout the trial, especially when they are presented with some sensitive pieces of information. Another thing that was stated about the case was that “The jury was not allowed to hear evidence about the wider context of well contamination” (paragraph 2, Harold Givens “The Argument Against Jury Confusion of Complex Trials”). This would have made the trial harder, especially since the trial had something to do with contamination. If the jury was not able to hear about the wider context of the well contamination, it would have possibly narrowed their perspective to the point where they wouldn't be able to actually know the full story. In fact, evidence on the well contamination would have helped the jury get some extra background information on what they were actually dealing with. One of the main causes of the contamination was the leather tanning company W.R. Grace and …show more content…
Algal blooms are the excess growth of algae in bodies of water. Algal blooms can lead to oxygen depletion, the production of harmful toxins, disrupt aquatic ecosystems, impact human health and activities, and they have large economic costs. Overall, the Woburn case is similar to and relates to a lot of issues in the legal system (Jonathan Harr). People who researched and studied the Woburn case said, “The lawyers and families put their lives on hold and sacrificed everything to fight for this case in hopes of proving that the two companies caused the pollution in question” (Paragraph 1, Jonathan Harr’s “ The Truth Behind Woburn”). This is important because it shows the dedication and commitment of the people who were involved in the case. This also highlights the importance of seeking justice and accountability in environmental matters that can have large impacts on communities. One of the key things that can be taken away from the Woburn case as a whole is that everything is connected, we cant separate the law from political and