2009 Case Inquiries

Question 1: I believe that at least two other statutes are necessary. One, It is difficult for either side to present an effective Closing Argument without a Reasonable Doubt definition. Of the many alternatives, I suggest we use the Colorado Instruction. Our local and state competition judges will be familiar with it. Two, There should be a definition of the tern "serious bodily injury" which is an element of the Assault charge.

Answer: Please see new ADDITIONAL COLORADO CRIMINAL STATUTES
AND JURY INSTRUCTION.

Question 2: Riley Poole references a watermark in Exhibit #7. What should we reference as the watermark?

Answer: See Stipulation #16.

Question 3: In Poole's statement, he/she states that Det. Cudusky states that there are only 3 footprints but Cudusky mentions 4 in his statement and 3 in Exhibit #4. Is this an issue of credibility or a mistake?

Answer: See Cudusky statement.

Question 4: In some places, the police department is referred to as Jefferson County police department, others the City of Golden Police department. Does Cudusky work for both?

Answer: No. He works for the City of Golden Jefferson County Police Department.

Question 5: Cudusky says Abby walked, Abby states she drove. Which is correct?

Answer: The Case Problem is correct.

Question 6: Exhibit #4, is it "six degrees" party or "seven degrees".

Answer: It is seven degrees. See revised exhibit #4.

Question 7: Cudusky says footprint found belongs to Prof. Lipski, but Exhibit #4 says they are Dean Wallbanger. Which is correct?

Answer: See revised affidavit.

Question 8: I would request two clarifications regarding the intent of Rule of Competition 4.8.

First, in each of the last two Regional’s and State Championships, the question has arisen whether witnesses use writing tools to make marks on Admitted Exhibits or, after an Exhibit is admitted, on a separate identical Demonstrative Exhibit.  Trial Judges have disagreed whether this technique is legal under Rule of Competition 4.8.

Rule 4.8 states: "Teams may refer only to material provided in the trial packet. No illustrative aids of any kind may be used, unless provided in the case packet." Clearly the Exhibits are provided in the trial packet, but writing tools to mark on the Exhibits are not included. The issue is whether the technique is legal under this Rule.

Second, Rule 4.8 states that: "The only documents that teams may present to the presiding judge or scoring panelists are the trial rosters and individual exhibits provided in the materials." Rule of Evidence 613, however, states: "Extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement is not admissible UNLESS the witness is afforded an opportunity to explain or deny the same and the opposite party is afforded an opportunity to interrogate."

The issue that has arisen is whether the Trial Statements of witnesses can be introduced into evidence as Exhibits if the requirements of Rule of Evidence 613 are otherwise met. Trial judges have in recent years ruled differently about this issue. We request that the issue be clarified.

Answer: See revised Rule 4.8.

Rule 4.8  Supplemental Material/Costuming
Teams may refer only to material provided in the trial packet. No illustrative aids of any kind may be used, unless provided in the case packet. No enlargements of the case materials will be permitted. Absolutely no props or costumes are permitted, unless specifically authorized in the case materials. Costuming is defined as hairstyles, clothing, accessories (example: hats, pins, gloves, scarves, etc.), and make-up that are case specific.

The only documents that teams may present to the presiding judge or scoring panelists are the trial rosters and the individual exhibits provided in the case material. These exhibits may be tendered to the presiding judge and scoring panelists at the discretion of the team. Exhibit notebooks are not permitted. However, this rule does not prohibit the introduction of witness statements if admissible by the Mock Trial Rules of Evidence and is permitted by the Judge.

In the event a team member appears at trial in costume or uses a prop, the team may be disqualified at the presiding judge’s discretion.  If the presiding judge decides to proceed with the trial, the presiding judge will meet with the scoring panel to discuss the penalty assessed against the team. The minimum penalty imposed for use of costumes or props is two ballots (not points).

Question 9: Exhibit 2 is listed as the "Zebulon Pike Journal from Santa Fe".  In Bennie Gates' witness statement, at page 61, paragraph 11, Bennie Gates states, ". . . when Jones had asked to borrow my Pike Journal pages to have them analyzed, I gave him/her "slightly altered" copies to throw her/his "expert" off a bit . . ."

    In Paris Oxley's witness statement; he/she stated that he/she had received a copy of the Pike Journal from Henri Jones (page 86, paragraph 12).  This was the copy Paris Oxley analyzed.

    Even though both Henri Jones and Paris Oxley have stated that in their opinion the document is a fake, can both the prosecution and defense assume that neither Henri Jones or Paris Oxley know that Bennie Gates had "slightly altered" the copy that each of them saw and analyzed?

Answer: The Case Problem is correct.

Question 10: Mock Trial Rule of Evidence 803 has had its subparts relabeled alphabetically in this year's problem. For example, Rule 803(21) is now 803(h). This is not consistent with the rule as it is used by Judges on a daily basis or with the National Mock Trial Rules of Evidence. For students who have previously participated in the program, it will require learning new rule numbers. It will also likely cause confusion for ruling Judges during rounds. The last two years, the same change was acknowledged to be a typographical error and the rule numbers were changed to reflect the numbers in the Federal Rules of Evidence and the National Mock Trial Rules. Will students be required to use the rule as currently renumbered or can you correct it to conform with previous years' rules and the National rules?

Answer: See Revised Case Problem.

Question 11: In A. Cudusky's affidavit s/he claims that the fourth set of footprints was left by Professor Lipski (Page 68, Paragraph 18, Line 6). However, in Ex. 4, C. Turner determines that the fourth set was left by the Dean, Harvey Wallbanger. Is this difference intentional or a typo?

Answer: See question #7.

Question 12: Did the "scuffle" between Abby and Henri happen inside or outside of Bennie's house?

Answer: The Case Problem is correct.

Question 13: In one statement, Abby walked to Bennie's house.  In another, she drove.  Is this inconsistency on purpose? 

Answer: The Case Problem is correct.