821 Witzel Avenue
Oshkosh, WI 54902
(920) 233-3300
I listen, I care,
and I can help you
Attorney at Law
Useful Website Links
HOW WOULD YOU DECIDE?
Effective legal counsel since 1979.
This web site is for general information purposes only and nothing on it should be construed as constituting formal legal advice or the formation of an attorney/client relationship between Attorney Schultz and any viewer.
Courts​​
Legislature
Agencies and Departments​
​​​​
The Case of the Altered AR-15
  
Brother “A” purchased a fully assembled AR-15 rifle from Gunshop. Brother “A” then allowed his Brother “B” to use the weapon and while engaged in hunting activities, the rifle accidentally discharged a number of times striking “B” in the foot and causing him substantial injuries. Immediately after the accident, law enforcement authorities took the weapon into their possession but subsequently gave it back to “A”. A month after he got it back (and after having been informed that a lawsuit was in the works with respect to his brother’s serious injuries), “A” took the weapon back to the Gunshop that he had bought it from and asked them to make some modifications in the weapon. Three months after those alterations were made, “B” sued the Gunshop which in turn filed a complaint against “A” alleging that the gunowner’s own negligence caused or contributed to the injuries sustained by his brother. When it came to light that “A” had in essence tampered with the evidence, both “B” and Gunshop filed motions requesting sanctions against “A” for what he had authorized to be done to his gun -- since he knew the condition of the weapon at the time of the accident would have been of material importance in the lawsuits. Gunshop argued that the sanction (or punishment) for “A” should be a dismissal of “B”’s lawsuit against it. But the trial Judge disagreed and only opted for issuing an instruction to the jury to the effect that it could (but was not required to) assume from what “A” had done that his actions were motivated by knowledge that the evidence itself was unfavorable to him in the litigation. But that was not good enough for the Gunshop and it appealed. What do you think? Should a guy facing considerable potential economic harm as a result of pending litigation who tampers with evidence get off with simply an instruction to the jury or would the termination of “B’s” lawsuit for what his brother had done (which is called spoilation) before the litigation had yet been started be most appropriate?           
       
                                                                  If you were the Judge: How would you decide?
Offender Registry and Tracking