If Mr. Jones And Cut-Rate Liquor, Was Intoxicated?

An Opening

Your Honor, the opposing counsel, members of the jury, this case is about the unreliability of evidence and an insufficiency to meet the burden of proof that is required to convict Mr. Jones and Cut-Rate Liquor with a violation of Nita Liquor Commission Regulation 3.102.
This case is to be decided on four issues:
1) Knowledge. Whether the Defendant, Mr. Jones and Cut-Rate Liquor, knew or ought to have known that the customer, Mr. Watkins, was intoxicated?
2) Sale. Whether the Defendant, Mr. Jones and Cut-Rate Liquor, sold a beverage in question to Mr. Watkins?
3) Intoxicating beverages. Whether the Defendant, Mr. Jones and Cut-Rate Liquor, sold intoxicating beverages, such as beer, wine, fortified wine or spirits to Mr. Watkins?
4) Intoxicated person.

Whether the Defendant, Mr. Jones and Cut-Rate Liquor, knew or ought to have known that the customer, Mr. Watkins, was intoxicated?
According to the evidence obtained in Direct Examination, Mr. Jones maintains that he did not know and he could not have ought to have known that Mr. Watkins was intoxicated. In fact, Mr. Jones states with a certainty that “At no time on that date did I sell liquor to someone who appeared drunk. That is against the company policy, and I can be fired for doing so.”
Crown is arguing that Mr. Watkins exhibited signs of an intoxicated individual (e.g., uneven gait, an odor of alcohol, glassy and bloodshot eyes). However, Mr. Jones asserts that these signs were not present during the interaction with Mr. Watkins. Mr. Jones’ view of the Seventh Street was obstructed by the steel security bars and advertising, therefore it was impossible for Mr. Jones to see that Mr. Watkins had uneven gait when he approached the Cut-Rate Liquor store. In fact, during the Cross-Examination, Mr. Bier admitted and I cite “It is possible” that Mr. Jones did not see Mr. Watkins stumbling on his way to the store because of the aforementioned