Antonio Margarito
NOVICE LEGAL EAGLE’S LOOK AT BOB ARUM & ANTONIO MARGA-CHEATO
Salt Lake City, UT– Although I am a law student, I do not have the legal background of promoter Bob Arum. I do not attend Harvard Law School nor have I ever worked as a U.S Attorney. But that does not mean I am not able to identify a misstatement of legal doctrine when I see it. Bob Arum said that he believes Antonio Margarito has been held responsible for loading his handwraps based on a strict liability theory. That is to say, that because they were his hands being wrapped, people do not believe it matters whether he knew they were wrapped illegally or not.
IN A CIVIL COURT CASE
In strict liability cases, even if a defendant did not behave negligently or have tortious intent, they could still be held responsible based on the theory that they are strictly liable for what happened on their facility. Stict liability theory is frequently invoked in cases involving defective or dangerous products. Mr. Arum would be on much stronger legal ground if this were actually the theory under which Margarito was condemned. But, what has taken place has not even involved an impermissible presumption that he had intent, let alone the wholesale evisceration of intent as a requirement to establish his guilt.
IN CRIMINAL COURT, IT’S “BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT”
If this were a criminal case, intent would have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in the same manner as other elements of the crime. However, while intent is always relevant and cannot be presumed, fact-finders are allowed to look to the facts and circumstances surrounding a defendant’s conduct in order to conclude they had intent.
PUT MARGARITO BEFORE A JURY & I THINK…
For instance, if someone shoots someone else in the heart, and then later claims that he did not intend to kill them, the jury would be permitted, though not required, to conclude that the individual had intent and that their explanation was self-serving and dishonest. In this case, although there is no per se rule that anyone having plaster loaded into their gloves must have known about it and approved of it, it is certaintly something a jury could (and probably would) conclude without any exculpatory evidence.
RATIONAL PERSON WOULD FIND ANTONIO GUILTY
Intent has never been irrelevant. If Mr. Margarito had been knocked unconscious and his gloves had been loaded, nobody would argue that as his hands, he is strictly liable for what goes on them. But under the circumstances as they unfolded it would be fairly easy to convince a rational person that he knew his gloves were loaded and intended to punch his opponent with those gloves.
MY DISCLAIMER
I am not licensed to practice law nor am I advising anyone on how to pursue a legal claim. These are only my opinions as they pertain to Mr. Margarito’s actions.
Phil Himmup