The main characters of this case were Judge Harold R. Staffeldt, the prosecutor Elkhart County District Attorney Michael Cosentino and his counterpart was Chief Ford attorney James F. Neal. The case was described as David vs. Goliath when you compare well equipped the defense was, with about 80 people and a budget of about $1 million, vs the Elkhart County state's attorney who had help from a couple of volunteer law professors and students and a budget of about $20,000. During the trial, Judge Harold R. Staffeldt advised the jury that it had to prove that Ford was guilty of “plain, conscious and unjustifiable disregard of harm that might result (from its actions) and the disregard involves a substantial deviation from acceptable standards of conduct.” Writer W. Michael Hoffman described in the article that “The key phrase around which the trial hinged, of course, is “acceptable standards.” He summarized the point of the case by asking:
“Did Ford knowingly and recklessly choose profit over safety in the design and placement of the Pinto’s gas tank?”…show more content… Cosentino pointed out that since Ford knew of this flaw but failed to notify consumers. The prosecution pursued for manslaughter charges which was possible under Indiana law. One of the main points the prosecution made was the fact that the ’73 Ford Pinto’s were being recalled as a result of the NHTSA investigation; The Ulrich’s were driving a 1973 Pinto. Cosentino argued that just like the rest of the consumers, Ford failed to notify the Ulrich’s in time. The Ulrich family received the recall letter six months after burying the victims. It also important to bring up that the Mother Jones article was published before the Ulrich trial, so the prosecution could have used info from the article to supplement their
