An Academic Extra-Curricular Activity for High School Students
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
An Academic Extra-Curricular Activity for High School Students
2
The Georgia High School Mock Trial Competition is a project of the Young Lawyers Division of the State Bar of Georgia
104 Marietta Street, NW; Suite 100; Atlanta, GA 30303 404/527‐8779 404/527‐8797 or 800/334‐6865 (ext. 779, 797) Fax: 404/527‐8717
www.georgiamocktrial.org [email protected]
www.facebook.com/GeorgiaMockTrial
Stacy Rieke, State Mock Trial Coordinator Peggy Caldwell, Asst. Coordinator
3
2012 Mock Trial Team Manual TABLE OF CONTENTS
ADA Compliance & Deadline Reminders ..................................................................................................... 4 Honor Roll of Georgia Champions ............................................................................................................... 5 Prior Georgia Mock Trial Cases .................................................................................................................... 6 Supporters of the GHSMT Competition ....................................................................................................... 7 YLD High School Mock Trial Committee ...................................................................................................... 9 Competition Rationale and Goals .............................................................................................................. 14
The 2012 Case Materials 2012 Case Credits .......................................................................................................................................... 15 Introduction and Stipulations ........................................................................................................................ 16 Witness List ................................................................................................................................................... 17 Exhibit List ..................................................................................................................................................... 18 Indictment ..................................................................................................................................................... 19 Witness Statements ...................................................................................................................................... 21 Exhibits .......................................................................................................................................................... 38 Legal Authorities ........................................................................................................................................... 48 Charge of the Court ....................................................................................................................................... 53
The 2012 Rules I. Rules of the Competition
A. The Problem ............................................................................................................................... 61 B. The Trial ..................................................................................................................................... 62 C. Judging ...................................................................................................................................... 68 D. Dispute Settlement ................................................................................................................... 71
II. Rules of Procedure A. Before the Trial ......................................................................................................................... 73 B. Beginning the Trial .................................................................................................................... 73 C. Presenting Evidence ................................................................................................................... 73 D. Special Mock Trial Objections .................................................................................................... 74 E. Critique ....................................................................................................................................... 74
III. Georgia High School Mock Trial Competition Rules of Evidence I. General Provisions ....................................................................................................................... 74 II. Judicial Notice ............................................................................................................................ 75 III. Presumptions in Civil Actions and Proceedings ......................................................................... 75 IV. Relevancy and Its Limits ............................................................................................................. 75 V. Privileges .................................................................................................................................... 76 VI. Witnesses .................................................................................................................................. 76 VII. Opinions and Expert Testimony ............................................................................................... 78 VIII. Hearsay .................................................................................................................................... 78 X. Contents of Writing, Recordings, and Photographs ................................................................... 81 XI. Miscellaneous Rules .................................................................................................................. 81
Competition Information Differences between Georgia Rules of Evidence & Mock Trial Rules of Evidence .......................... 82 Timekeeper Instructions & Time Card Use Chart ............................................................................ 83 Criteria for Scoring .......................................................................................................................... 88
All competition forms may be found under the TEAM INFORMATION section of the mock trial website (www.georgiamocktrial.org)
Copyright © 2011 by the High School Mock Trial Committee of the Young Lawyers Division, State Bar of Georgia.
All rights reserved. Permission to duplicate portions of this manual for non‐profit educational purposes is hereby granted, provided acknowledgement is given to the Georgia High School Mock Trial Committee, Young Lawyers Division, State Bar of Georgia.
4
NOTICE OF MOCK TRIAL PROGRAM’S COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT REQUIREMENTS
If any team member has a disability and requires special assistance, special services, or printed materials in alternative formats in order to participate in the Georgia Mock Trial Competition, the teacher coach should contact the State Mock Trial Coordinator at 404/527‐8779, 800/334‐6865 (ext. 779) or [email protected] well in advance of the case release date or as soon as the student joins the mock trial team. There may be some delay in delivery of case materials in an alternative format if a coach does not inform the mock trial office of this request in a timely manner and well in advance of the case release date. At competition, it is not the intention of the High School Mock Trial Committee to disclose unnecessarily the special circumstances of any students; however, in some cases, limited disclosure is necessary to assure competition fairness. In such cases, disclosure will only be made to the extent necessary to assure fairness. Coaches with questions concerning the existence of any special circumstances should contact the mock trial office well in advance of competition day.
REMINDER OF DUE DATES
Team Member List (includes names of 4‐Year Participants) ......................................... 20 January 2012 This form lists all young people on your team, including additional, non‐competing members and timekeepers. All members must report birthdates. If you have new coaches since registration in October, please submit the Supplemental Team Coach Form. These forms are located under the Forms link in the Team Information section of the website and are to be sent to the state mock trial office by the due date. Trial Squad Roster Form .......................................... Competition Date/Each Round (Regional & State) This form lists Prosecution/Plaintiff and Defense squads separately, identifying the roles played by competing team members. It must be prepared according to instructions and duplicated for distribution to opponents and judging panels in all rounds at competition. This form is located under the Forms link in the Team Information section of the website. Code of Ethical Conduct/Team Roster Form ................................ Competition Date (Regional & State) All team members and coaches must sign this Code and deliver it to the trial coordinator at the trial site. This form is located under the Forms link in the Team Information section of the website. Regional Champion & Wildcard Team Paperwork ........................................................... 2 March 2012 All required forms for state finals are due BEFORE NOON on this date. Early submission of these materials is greatly appreciated. These forms will be provided to the appropriate teams in the Regional Champion or Wildcard Packet at the end of the regional level of competition.
Attorney Coach CLE Form .............................................................................................. 15 March 2012 All attorney coaches wishing to receive CLE credit for coaching during the 2012 mock trial season must submit this form to the mock trial office. An attorney coach must coach at least 10 hours in order to be eligible for the credit. Contact the mock trial office with any questions. This form is located both under the Forms link in the Team Information and in the Volunteer section of the mock trial website. Outstanding Coach Award Nominations ........................................................................... 15 April 2012 Information about nominating a coach for an Outstanding Coach award may be found on the mock trial website under the Programs section.
5
Honor Roll of Georgia Champion Mock Trial Teams
1988 – Jonesboro High School, Jonesboro .................................... Dallas, TX (placement unknown*)
1989 – Brookstone School, Columbus ..................................... Louisville, KY (placement unknown*)
1990 – Brookstone School, Columbus .................................................. Portland, OR (7th place—tie)
1991 – South Gwinnett High School, Snellville ....................................... New Orleans, LA (4th place)
1992 – Brookstone School, Columbus ........................................................ Madison, WI (11th place)
1993 – Crisp County High School, Cordele ...................................................... Atlanta, GA (9th place)
1994 – Northwest Whitfield High School, Tunnel Hill ................................... Chicago, IL (15th place)
1995 – South Gwinnett High School, Snellville ................................ Denver, CO National Champion
1996 – Redan High School, Stone Mountain .............................................. Pittsburgh, PA (4th place)
1997 – Ware County Magnet School, Manor ............................................. Nashville, TN (11th place)
1998 – Clarke Central High School, Athens ........................................... Albuquerque, NM (6th place)
1999 – Clarke Central High School, Athens ................................... St. Louis, MO National Champion
2000 – Henry W. Grady High School, Atlanta ............................................. Columbia, SC (13th place)
2001 – Riverdale High School, Riverdale ....................................................... Omaha, NE (13th place)
2002 – Jonesboro High School, Jonesboro ................................................... St. Paul, MN (10th place)
2003 – Jonesboro High School, Jonesboro ............................................ New Orleans, LA (16th place)
2004 – Clarke Central High School, Athens ................................................... Orlando, FL (23rd place)
2005 – Henry W. Grady High School, Atlanta ............................................ Charlotte, NC (16th place)
2006 – Jonesboro High School, Jonesboro .......................................... Oklahoma City, OK (5th place)
2007 – Jonesboro High School, Jonesboro ......................................... Dallas, TX National Champion
2008 – Jonesboro High School, Jonesboro ................................ Wilmington, DE National Champion
2009 – Henry W. Grady High School, Atlanta ................................................. Atlanta, GA (8th place)
2010 – Henry W. Grady High School, Atlanta .......................................... Philadelphia, PA (3rd place)
2011 – Henry W. Grady High School, Atlanta ................................................. Phoenix, AZ (4th place)
*From 1983 until 1990, only the placement of the top four teams was announced during the national level of competition.
6
Cases Used and Issues Studied in Previous Georgia Mock Trial Seasons
1988 – State v. Bryant ......................................................... Drug Trafficking (Entrapment Defense)
1989 – Johnson v. Bowen ..................................................................................... DUI (Host Liability)
1990 – State v. Barrett ....................................................... Homicide (Battered Woman Syndrome)
1991 – Hills v. Midway School Board ................................... Freedom of Speech in a School Setting
1992 – State v. Binder .............................................................................................. Drug Trafficking
1993 – Alexander v. Cooper, Cook & Troy .............................. Sexual Harassment in the Workplace
1994 – U.S. v. Remy ................................................................................ Conspiracy to Import Drugs
1995 – Tenebrous v. Busy Bee Express ....................................................................... Personal Injury
1996 – State v. Foil .............................................................................................................. Homicide
1997 – Ortega v. Brewster ....................................................................................... Wrongful Death
1998 – State v. Peterson ....................................................... Involuntary Manslaughter and Hazing
1999 – O’Riley v. Happy Daze Daycare Center ........................................................... Personal Injury
2000 – State v. Brunetti ...................................................................................................... Homicide
2001 – Hamilton v. Sadler ........................................................................................................... Libel
2002 – State v. Cunningham ......................................................................... Homicide/Self‐Defense
2003 – Schwinn v. Farnsworth ................................................................... Comparative Negligence
2004 – State v. Finn ............................................................................................................. Homicide
2005 – Fields v. Register ........................................................................................... Wrongful Death
2006 – State v. Banks ............................................................................................... Homicide/Arson
2007 – LaQuinta v. Hill .............................................................................................. Wrongful Death
2008 – State v. Bryant ......................................................... Drug Trafficking (Entrapment Defense)
2009 – Sadler v. Hamilton ............................................................................................... Tort/Battery
2010 – State v. Stafford ....................................................................................... Aggravated Assault
2011 – Greenwood v. Durden .............. 42 USC § 1983 Action (Social Media & Freedom of Speech)
7
Supporters of the Georgia High School Mock Trial Competition
From 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011
We appreciate the generosity of those whose donations make possible the programs offered by the YLD High School Mock Trial Committee. We welcome supporters and accept tax‐deductible contributions through the State Bar of Georgia Foundation.
Major Grantor
State Bar of Georgia
Grantor
Young Lawyers Divis ion of the State Bar of Georgia
Patrons
Coca‐Cola Company, Atlanta
Carl Gebo
Thomas Malone
Benefactors
Leanne C. Beutler
Hon. George H. & Sandy Carley
Eugene J. Duffy
Nancy Habif
Kinnane Woodworking, Inc., Atlanta
Sponsors
Eddie Amoakuh
Thomas J. Ashenden
Hon. Michael & Christy Barker
Hon. Edward & Jane Carriere
Jill L. Cassert
John A. Chandler
Taylor Daly
Saundra Davis Holdings, LLC, Snellville
Bertis E. Downs
James Lee Ford
Fried, Rogers & Goldberg, LLC, Atlanta
Moshe Gittelson
Bruce A. Hagen
Jeanne M. Hall
Cindy D. Hanson
John M. Hyatt
Dana Leshley
Anne G. McGlamry
Max R. McGlamry
Janice Moraczewski
Moraitakis & Kushel, LLP, Atlanta
Albert M. Pearson, III
Kevin A. Russell
Hon. Leah Sears
Bonnie K. Smith
Sarah W. Thomsen
Hillard S. Weinstock
8
Friends
Cathy Archibald
Cory G. Begner
Margaret C. Berecki
John J. Dalton
Joycelyn Fleming
Karen C. Green
Eve Groton
Sharon Hermann
Hill & Bleiberg, Atlanta
Mary Burke Hood
Deane Anne Johnson
Daniel H. Orrock
Joyce Paris
James M. Poe, PC, Atlanta
Stephen Riddell
L. Randy Starnes
Whit Wood
In‐Kind Donors
Alston & Bird, LLP, Atlanta
Adorno & Yoss and Yoss, LLP, Atlanta
Barron’s Rental Center, Athens
Bartow County Bar Association, Cartersville
Chick‐Fil‐A Restaurant, Hampton
Chick‐Fil‐A Restaurant, Lanier Crossing
Elements Coffee Company, Albany
Paula Gault
Christina R. Jenkins, LLC, Cartersville
Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Riverdale
Roy E. Manoll, III
MetroFresh, Atlanta
Newnan‐Coweta County Bar Association, Newnan
Panera Bread Café, Athens
Park Tavern, Atlanta
Pocket Press, Inc., Portland, OR
Publix Super Markets, Inc., Atlanta Division
Publix Super Market, Cumming
Rotary Club of Forsyth County
Rotary Club of Lanier Forsyth County
Rotary Club of South Forsyth County
Savannah College of Art & Design
Margaret Spencer
Sutherland Law Firm, Atlanta
University of Georgia School of Law, Athens
Western Circuit Bar Association, Athens
9
THE 2011‐2012 HIGH SCHOOL MOCK TRIAL COMMITTEE Stephanie Kirijan, YLD President
Jonathan Pannell, YLD President‐Elect Jon Setzer, HSMTC Chair
Deshala Dixon, HSMTC 1st Vice Chair Kevin Epps, HSMTC 2nd Vice Chair
Special Consultant to the GHSMT
Committee Hon. George H. Carley,
Presiding Justice, Supreme Court of Georgia
Ex‐Officio
Kenneth L. Shigley President of the State Bar of Georgia
Robin Frazer Clark State Bar of Georgia President‐Elect
S. Lester Tate, III State Bar of Georgia Immediate Past
President Michael G. Geoffroy
Immediate Past Young Lawyers Division President
Subcommittee on Competitions
(Regional Coordinators) Brannon Arnold Melissa Banker Lauren Brock Nick Bruce
Will Claiborne Will Davis
Render Freeman Brian Gardiner Erica Ghali
Christina Jenkins Sherri Kelley
Nicole Marchand Adrienne Nash William Noland Erik Pirozzi
Judge Toby Prodgers Sam Sanders
Shannon Sneed Bonnie Smith
Subcommittee on Development (Fundraising)
Ashley Palmer, Chair Deshala Dixon Sally Evans
Betsy Hodges Aimee Maxwell
Jon Setzer
Subcommittee on the Problem
Judge Michael Barker, Chair John Ratterree,
Vice Chair Hon. George Carley, Special Consultant
Christy Barker Judge Melodie Clayton
Julie Culhane Deshala Dixon Kevin Epps Beth Jones
Judge Jennifer Mann Roy Manoll Phil McCurdy William Noland
Jon Setzer Bonnie Smith Suzanne Smith Linda Spievack J. Maria Waters Katie Wood
Subcommittee on the Rules
Deborah Craytor, Chair Hon. George Carley, Special Consultant
Christy Barker Candace Byrd Julie Culhane Deshala Dixon Kevin Epps Sally Evans
Cynthia Hodge Heather Lanier Theresia Moser William Noland Ashley Palmer Jon Setzer
Bonnie Smith Robert Smith
Past GHSMT Committee Chairs Warner S. Fox (1987‐89)
Elizabeth B. Hodges (1987‐89) Susan B. Devitt (1989‐90)
Joseph A. Roseborough (1990‐91) Aimee R. Maxwell (1991‐92) Gregory S. Smith (1992‐93) Lela Smith Bridgers (1993‐94) Cathy Cox Brakefield (1994‐95)
Julie D. Culhane (1995‐96) Catherine H. Hicks (1996‐97) H. Suzanne Smith (1997‐98)
Frederick N. Sager, Jr. (1998‐99) Roy E. Manoll, III (1999‐00) Jennifer B. Mann (2000‐01) Christine S. Barker (2001‐02) Candace L. Byrd (2002‐03)
Robert A. McDonald (2003‐04) Leah E. McEwen (2004‐05)
Jason B. Thompson (2005‐06) Tania T. Trumble (2006‐07)
Sara A. “Sally” Evans (2007‐08) William H. Noland (2008‐09) Stacey G. Evans (2009‐10) Ashley M. Palmer (2010‐11)
10
Suzanne Smith
Nathan Gaffney Carl Gebo
Ken Mauldin Non‐Voting Coach Representatives to
the Rules Subcommittee
Subcommittee on Honors and Awards Linda Spievack, Chair
Betsy Hodges Ashley Palmer Jon Setzer
State Finals Planning Board
Hon. George Carley, Special Consultant Christy Barker Candace Byrd Peggy Caldwell Deborah Craytor Deshala Dixon Kevin Epps Sally Evans
Catherine Hicks Judge Jennifer Mann
William Noland Ashley Palmer Bonnie Smith Suzanne Smith Jon Setzer
Ellen Sumner Regina Thomas Katie Wood
Special Projects Task Force
Aimee Maxwell, Chair Julie Culhane Rhonda Klein Ashley Palmer
2011 Law Academy Faculty & Staff
Christy Barker Judge Michael Barker
Peggy Caldwell Chris Cannon
Judge John Carbo Judge Linda Cowen
Julie Culhane Candace Hill Duvernay
Rhonda Klein Barry Stewart Mann T. Orlando Pearson
Stacy Rieke Jon Setzer
Bonnie Smith
Craig Harding Memorial Court Artist Contest
Julie Culhane, Contest Director
Subcommittee on Teams— Teacher Coaches
Abdur‐Rahim Akram Mack Anthony
Catherine Ariemma Emory Arnold
Marybeth Atkins Al Barton
Uma Bassey Colleen Blankenship Kenneth Bradley Carolyn Brock Natalie Brody Melanie Brown Shannon Buff Amy Bull
Kevin Busse Jason Butler
Sr. Helen Marie Buttimer Lindsey Campbell Chris Cannon
Stephanie Caywood Brett Chatham
Adrienne Christian Amber Clapp John Clark
David Cleveland Kelly Cole
Albert Coley Steven Colley Kevin Copeland Sherry Cornay Leah Couch Andrew Cox Anna Cox Gary Crane
Scott Crawford Kevin Crawley
Helen Cummings Steve Cummings Karen Dailey Jarrod Davis
Toni Dekiere‐Phillips Ida Dixon Kitty Drew
Michele Dugan Olivia Dye
Cedric English Henry Ficklin
Andree Fitzpatrick Peter Foley Vanna Foster Elizabeth Foy
Carolyn Fraser Jeannie Fulbright Rich Gamble Tiffany George Tammy Gibson James Glenn Cara Goodman Joy Goodman
Valerie Goodson Scott Grant
Roderetta Green Vanessa Guilarte Jeremy Hamm Sandra Hansen Elberta Harris Philip Hart Ardis Harvey Rachel Hedges
Heather Henderson Matthew Hendrix Alan Hickerson
Matthew Hickman Shanda Hickman Dawnya Hill
Elizabeth Hinson Nick Hodge
Libby Housand Pat Uelmen Huey Alan Hughes Renee Hughes Mattye Hulin
Anthony Jackson Lori James Amy Jessee
Catherine Johnson Cynthia Johnson Donna Johnson Laura Johnstono Kathy Kelley Alex Kesler Winston King Allison Konter Geoffrey Koski Elizabeth Lake Darlene Lane Eric Lauterbach Kelly Laxton Brian Leahy Bill Leonard Anna Lewis Garnica Lewis
Kristen Lombardo John Lynah
Barbara Macko John Mangano Yolanda McBride Joan McCabe
Jo‐Ann McCauley Felicia McCrary Paul McIlwaine
Machelle McKibben Sandra McPhail Iris McRee
Mary Anne Meeks Mary Catherine Mesaros
11
Stacey Milhollin Loretta Mirandola Monique Mitchell Bette Mobley Robin Moon
LaToya Morgan Don Mosley
Gloria Murphy Michael Nixon Charlton Norah Daniel Page Chris Parizo Gloria Parks
Kristina Parrish Amy Payne Tom Pearce Geoff Periard Kay Perry
Dr. Tanya Persaud‐White Leila Phillips Teresa Phillips
Brittney Phinazee Wy Pringley
Ashley Procter Anthony Rainge Maritza Ramos
Kristina Richardson Debra Richmond Richard Ricks Yusef Roberts Aaron Robinson James Robinson Valerie Robinson Judith Roseman Barbara Rosolino Valerie Ruffin Jennifer Ruppel Amy Schwan Charlie Sea
Margaret Sheehan Jacob Sheridan Kirk Shook Lisa Sloan Matt Smith
Melanie Smith Melissa Smith Tyler Smith
Daniel Sobczak Greg Spicer Dena Spradlin Natalie Starling Autumn Steele
Allen Steinhauser Emma Stephens Kelly Stephens
Bobby Stephenson Jasmine Stinson
Elizabeth Summerlin Jeneen Sutton Mary Tallant Debra Tavaras Nancy Taylor Philip Tetteh
Robert Thompson Tommy Thompson
Sean Torbett Cheryl Turner Susan Turner Kathy Vail
Stephen Valdes Annette Vick Erik Vincent
Elizabeth Walker Bonita Wallace Irwin Wardlow Renee Waters Kindra Watters
Jason Weinberger Sarah Welch Erin White Mitch White Ken Wiggins
Matthew Williams Bobby Wilson Tara Workman Hal Wright Cindi Yeager
Subcommittee on the Teams—Attorney Coaches Herbert Adams, Jr.
Amer Ahmad Alan Alexander
Thomas Peter Allen, III R. Lars Anderson Arthur S. Archibald Kevin Armstrong Jennifer Arndt Victoria Aronow Todd H. Ashley D. Warren Auld John Autry Cinque Axam Eszter Bardi John Barrett
Shakara Barnes Judge Deborah Benefield
Doug Bennett Barbara Berger Steven Berne
Jason Blanchard Anna Bolden Craig Bonnell
Daniel D. Bowen Katrell Bowick Stephen Bradley
Christopher Brasher Jason Braswell
Jeffrey H. Brickman Converse Bright Patricia Brooks Alex Brown
Beth D. Brown Tyler Browning
Neil Brunt Kimberly Bourroughs
Zachary J. Burkhalter Travis Cain
Portland Campanaro Jared Campbell Jody Campbell
Judge John Carbo Heather Carter
Jacqueline Caruana Ted Cassert
Charles Cauble James Chafin
Heather Chambers Holly Chapman Dawn Childress C. R. Chisholm Patrick Chisholm
John Cicala Cecilly Clark Louis Cohan
John M. Coleman Chris Conley John Connell Nicole Cook
Steven A. Cook Joseph Cooley, III Ashley Cooper Denise Cooper LeAnn Cooper Michael Cooper Chad Corlee
Cathy Cox‐Brakefield Stephen Coxen
J. Michael Cranford Judge Vincent Crawford
Steve Cummings James Dalton Kim Dammers Beth Danforth Robert Daniel Brandy Daswani Andy Daugherty Jeanne Davis Willie Davis Monica Dean Mark F. Dehler Daniel DeWoskin Aja Diamond Paul Dietrick
Deborah Doolittle Lynn D. Doss
David Doverspike William Downs Nhan‐Ai Du
Michael R. Dunham Candace H. Duvernay
Kem Eyo Katherine Fagan Amy E. Falley Eugene Felton Adam Ferrell
Crystal Filiberto Andree Fitzpatrick Scott J. Forster Jackie Fortier Julian Fortuna
12
Ira L. Foster Michael Friedman Lane Frostbaum
Paul Fryer Nafisah M. Fudaeel
Jeff Fulbright Marcia M. Fuller Nathan Gaffney Keith Gammage Stephen E. Garner Andrew Gebhardt
Carl Gebo Travis Glahn Teah Glenn
Steve Gottlieb Elizabeth Grant Fred Green
Jennifer Green Sarah Griffie James Griffin R. Scott Griffin Matt Grossman Nekia Hackworth Adam Hames Frank Hamilton
Heather Hammonds Jennifer Hanson
Judge Jason T. Harper Ernie Harris Richard Harris Darryl Haynes John S. Helton Jennifer Herman Russel Hetzel Cather H. Hicks
Jeff Hicks Sherrianne Hicks Mark Higgins
Currey Hitchens Jeff Hood
Camille Hope Kathryn Hopkins Judge Brian House Candie Howard
James W. Howard Sharon E. Howard Tamika Hrobowski
Ella Hughes Eddie Hulsey
Kathleen Hurley Trinh Huynh Jenny Jensen Roderick Jones Sean Joyner Mary M. Katz Amy L. Kaye Dennis Keene
Christina Kempter Ben Kenemer Ethenia King Joseph King Ryan Klee
Rhonda Klein Kevin S. Kovalchik Wade Krueger
Anne Kurtz Dixon Lackey Megan Lane Eric Lang
Erin Lanning Mark Lee Bert Levy
Amanda Lewis Chanette Lewis Lawrence Lewis Nicole S. Lewis Ashanti Lilley George Lilly
Gina Lindekugel Stephanie Lindsey
Ryan Locke Colby E. Longley
Sean Lowe Robert Luskin Robert Mack
Elisabeth MacNamara Andrew Mahler (3L)
Doug Makillup John Manly
Megan U. Manly Cindy Manning Quentin Marlin Debbie Maron L. Beth Martin Lee Mason
Alley Mauldin Ken Mauldin John R. Mayer Randy Mayer
Judge Bemon McBride Debra McCormick Matthew McCoyd
Robert P. McFarland, Jr. Cecily McLeod Colin McRae
Jerry David McRee Edward Meeks Amanda Mercier Evan Mermelstein
Phyllis Miller Scott Minter
Judge Murphy Miller Stephanie Miller Loretta Mirandola Jared L. Mitnick Ted Morgan Ricky Morris
Stacey F. Morris Bill Morrison Gary Moser Tasha Mosley
Holly P. Mueleman Joseph K. Mulholland Judge Michael Murphy
Michael Murphy Trish Murphy Elise Myers
Thea A. Nanton‐Persaud John W. Nelson Jorgia Northrup
Alan Norton Albert Norton Charles Norton John R. Palmer Pandora Palmer Malcom Palmore J. Roger Palmour
Catherine M. Palumbo John T. Parker
Sandra Partridge Deepa Patel Samir Patel
Amanda Patterson Joseph C. Peale Brian M. Pearce
T. Orlando Pearson Ben Perkins Michael Perry Barry Phillips Melinda Pillow
Tashwanda Pinchback Emory Potter Katie Powers
Emily Macherki Preston Zachary Procter Shondra Pruitt David Quillams Matthew Rankin Sarah Rasalam Earnest Redwine Alexandria Reyes
Thomas F. Richardson Brandy Roatsey Danielle Roberts William Roberts Austin Robertson
Michelle F. Robertson Amber Robinson Antonio Robinson Randall F. Rogers
W. Charles (Chuck) Ross Walter Rucker Adam Ruf
Phyllis Russell Crystal J. Rutland Karen Sabatino J. Thomas Salata
John Salter Dale R. (Bubba) Samuels
Byron Sanford Joshua Schiffer Jason Schneider
Kathryn M. Schrader Kurt Schuettingen Jeffrey A. Schwartz John Sheesley Zach Shemaker Allen Shulman
Judge Bobby Simmons Sutton Slover Brad Smith Jaeson Smith Karen Smith Ravelle Smith Salvia Smith
13
Aurieanne Sneed John T. Sparks Serena Sparks
Stephen Spencer Gregory J. Spicer Stroud Stacy
Anna Cox Steedman Kim T. Stephens James G. Stewart Brian Strickland Deb Sudbury
Chandelle Summer Terri Sutton Ryan Swingle
Matthew S. Swope Larry Tatum
Lt. Col. Michael Taylor Richard T. Taylor Ellie L. Terry
Richard Tisinger, Jr.
Chittam Thakore Zachary Thomas Tony Thomasson Marcus Thorpe Mareesa Torres Jessica R. Towne
William E. Turnipseed David Van Sant Antonio Veal David Vigilante Davene Walker Rob Waller
Jill Wasserman Chris Watkins Evan Watson Marie Watson
Jennifer O. Watts John P. Webb
Joseph Weinberg Melinda Wharton
Kathryn Whitlock Jack F. Wicher
Dorothy Williams Scott M. Williamson
Brett Willis Ginger Willis Jamie Wingler Monica Wingler
Beau Worthington Comer Yates Cindi Yeager
Brenda Youmas Rachel Young Haley Zapal Peter Zeliff Layla Zon
14
RATIONALE OF THE GEORGIA MOCK TRIAL
COMPETITION The mock trial activity has proven to be an
effective and popular part of a comprehensive, law‐focused program designed to provide young people with an operational understanding of the law, legal issues and the judicial process. Part of the appeal of a mock trial is the fun involved in preparing for, and participating in, a trial. Mock trials are exciting, but more importantly, they provide invaluable learning experiences.
Participation in, and analysis of, mock trials
provides young people with an insider's perspective from which to learn about courtroom procedures.
Mock trials help students gain a basic
understanding of the legal mechanism through which society chooses to resolve many of its disputes. Moreover, while obtaining this knowledge, young people develop useful questioning, critical thinking, and oral advocacy skills, as well as significant insight into the area of law in question.
The mock trial activity also provides an
opportunity to incorporate field experiences and community resource persons into the educational process. Visits to local courts will make the activity a more meaningful learning experience. Inviting judges, attorneys, and other members of the legal community to take part in the mock trial will help bridge the gap between the simulated activity and reality, and also will provide an opportunity for the resource people to share their knowledge and experience with young people. Finally, the mock trial will give participants practical knowledge about courts and trials which can be invaluable should they ever be jurors or witnesses in a real trial or principals in a legal action. (Taken in part from Update on Law‐Related Education, Winter, 1978. Update is an American Bar Association publication.)
GOALS OF THE GEORGIA MOCK TRIAL
COMPETITION Benefits of the mock trial program extend
beyond the rewards of competing against one’s peers or winning a round of competition. The impact of the program is measured by successfully attaining the following objectives: to further understanding of court procedures and the legal system; to improve proficiency in basic skills: listening, speaking, reading, and reasoning; to promote better communication and cooperation between the educational and legal communities; to provide a competitive event in an academic atmosphere; and to promote cooperation among young people of various abilities and interests.
Education of young people is the primary
goal of the mock trial program. Healthy competition helps to achieve this goal. However, teacher coaches are reminded of their responsibility to keep the competitive spirit at a reasonable level. The reality of the adversary system is that one party wins and the other loses, and coaches should be sure to prepare their team members to be ready to accept either outcome in a mature manner. Coaches can help prepare students for either outcome by placing the highest value on excellent preparation and presentation, rather than winning or losing the case. Participants need to be prepared for the agony of defeat was well as how to win with class.
Hurt feelings, anger and frustration are not
the objectives of the mock trials. We hope students view the event as a fun and exciting learning experience. An admonition to all team members and coaches: Lighten‐up and have a good time, regardless of the competition's outcome!
15
The 2012 Mock Trial Case
authored by the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE PROBLEM YLD HIGH SCHOOL MOCK TRIAL COMMITTEE
STATE BAR OF GEORGIA
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MILTON COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA
STATE OF GEORGIA, ) )
) v. ) Criminal Action No. 2012‐MT ) ) Daniel/Danielle Capulet ) )
)
NOTE: All characters, names, events, places and circumstances in this mock trial case are fictitious or are used fictitiously. Any resemblance to any person (living or dead), place,
thing or event is purely coincidental.
The Subcommittee on the Problem gratefully acknowledges the team of writers and editors who produced this original case:
Judge Michael H. Barker, Magistrate Court of Chatham County, Savannah John Ratterree, II, Esq., Atlanta
Christine S. “Christy” Barker, Esq., Chatham County District Attorney’s Office, Savannah C. Elizabeth “Beth” Jones, Esq., Marietta
Roy E. Manoll, III, Esq., Fortson, Bentley & Griffin, Athens H. Suzanne Smith, Esq., Alston & Bird, Atlanta
Katie Wood, Esq., Atlanta
Special Acknowledgement and thanks go to Walden G. Housman, Esq. (Athens) for suggesting this scenario and to
William Ortiz, team member at Brookwood High School (Snellville), for providing the name of witness Taylor McFly via the Georgia Mock Trial Facebook page.
16
INTRODUCTION
This introduction is of no legal consequence in terms of the trial and is not admissible for
impeachment purposes or for any other purpose.
Although every year’s problem is implicitly dedicated to him, this year we make it official. We proudly dedicate the 2012 Georgia High School Mock Trial Competition case to Presiding Justice George H. Carley. For 23 years, he has unselfishly given his valuable time and immeasurable talent in order to develop and flourish the Georgia High School Mock Trial Competition into a nationally prominent program. Since 2003, he has also given the same dedication and support to the National High School Mock Trial Championship so the rest of the country can benefit from his inspiration. He is our muse, our conscience and our institutional memory. He is ever‐present and always involved. Words can never adequately express our gratitude, love and admiration for Presiding Justice Carley, who asks only two things from a mock trial problem – conflict and a dead body.
Judge Michael H. Barker (Savannah) Chair, GHSMTC Problem Subcommittee
This year’s mock trial case meets both of Justice Carley’s requirements: there is conflict and a dead body. The scenario is very loosely based on the real‐life case, State v. Gear (2008‐Oconee County, GA; Western Judicial Circuit). Because the goal of the case writers each season is to create a balanced mock trial case that is gender neutral, it was necessary to adjust and realign the original fact pattern to fit our purposes. Therefore the 2012 Georgia mock trial case, State v. Capulet, has traveled somewhat far afield from the case that originally inspired it. Philip Newton, a resident of Miltonville, is shot and killed while riding his Harley Davidson Road King on Quarto Run on May 14, 2011. Taylor McFly, Philip’s best friend, was on the bike with Philip when the incident occurred. Daniel/Danielle Capulet, the defendant, has been charged with Murder, Felony Murder and Aggravated Assault in Newton’s death. Capulet’s teenage child, Julian/Julianne, was an eye‐witness to the shooting, as was Capulet’s neighbor Luiz/Louise Montague and Montague’s teenage child, Marty. Lots of dueling eyewitness testimony in this year’s problem should keep teams on their toes during competition rounds and we hope that your team will enjoy working with this scenario this season.
STIPULATIONS
1. All exhibits included in the problem are authentic and accurate in all respects, and no
objections to the authenticity of the exhibits shall be entertained. 2. Stipulations cannot be contradicted or challenged. 3. The signatures on the witness statements and all other documents are authentic. 4. There are NO costume options permitted as an exception to Rule 20 this season. 5. The Charge of the Court is accurate in all respects; no objections to the charge shall be
entertained. 6. Chain of custody for evidence is not in dispute. 7. No demurrer to the indictment shall be allowed.
17
8. The Introduction provided is of no legal consequence in terms of the trial and is not admissible for impeachment purposes or for any other purpose.
9. Exhibits 1(B), 1(C) and 4 fairly and accurately depict the item, scene, view, photo, information and/or geography they purport to depict. These exhibits were compiled and created by Officer Bailey Pickett.
10. Exhibit 1, in its entirety, is a document kept in the ordinary course of business or as part of the ordinary conduct of an organization or enterprise; it is part of the ordinary business of that organization, business, or enterprise, to compile the data or information; the information was made for the purpose of recording the occurrence of an event, act, condition, opinion, or diagnosis that takes place in the ordinary course of the business or enterprise; the entry in the record or the compiling of the data was made at or near the time when the event took place; and the recording of the event was made by someone who has personal knowledge of it.
11. Exhibits 2(A), 2(B), 2(C) and 2(D) were recovered from the left saddlebag of Philip Newton’s motorcycle and inventoried by the Milton County Police Department. The “Signature of Accused” on each exhibit is that of Philip Newton.
12. Exhibit 3 is a certified copy of the “Final Disposition Form” from the State Court of Milton County.
13. The clerk of Milton County Recorder’s Court has certified that Exhibits 2(A), 2(B), 2(C) and 2(D) were each disposed by fines paid in cash on the following dates:
2(A) – paid $145 on 29 May 2009 2(B) – paid $208 on 30 November 2009 2(C) – paid $145 on 5 February 2010 2(D) – paid $124 on 28 December 2010
14. An autopsy showed that Philip Newton died as the result of two gunshot wounds to the chest. The bullets recovered from Philip Newton’s body came from Daniel/Danielle Capulet’s gun.
15. The paint recovered from the rear bumper of Julian/Julianne Capulet’s Honda matched the paint on the left rear saddlebag from Philip Newton’s Harley Davidson.
WITNESSES
The following witnesses are available to be called by the parties. Prosecution witnesses may not testify or be called on behalf of the Defendant. Defense witnesses may not testify or be called on behalf of the Prosecution. All witnesses may be female or male. See Rules 3, 5 and 12(f) for more
details on witnesses.
For the Prosecution Officer Bailey Pickett
Taylor McFly Luiz/Louise Montague
For the Defense Daniel/Danielle (Danny/Dani) Capulet, defendant
Julian/Julianne (Jules) Capulet Marty Montague
18
EXHIBITS Teams in competition may use the following exhibits. They are pre‐marked and are to be referred to
by number, as follows: Exhibit No. Exhibit Title/Description 1(A) Police Report 1(B) Photo & Information – motorcycle 1(C) Photo & Information – gun 2(A) Traffic Citation (Newton) – 05/18/09 2(B) Traffic Citation (Newton) – 11/11/09 2(C) Traffic Citation (Newton) – 01/21/10 2(D) Traffic Citation (Newton) – 12/18/10 3 Final Disposition Form (Capulet) – 08/20/10 4 Scene Diagram
19
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MILTON COUNTY BILL OF INDICTMENT
COUNT ONE: MURDER (O.C.G.A. § 16‐5‐1 (a)) THE GRAND JURORS selected, chosen and sworn for the County of Milton, to wit:
1. Brannon Arnold 2. Lauren Brock 3. Nick Bruce 4. George Carley 5. Will Claiborne 6. Donna Crossland 7. Will Davis 8. Kevin Epps 9. Render Freeman 10. Brian Gardiner 11. Erica Ghali
12. Christina Jenkins 13. Sherri Kelley 14. Nicole Marchand 15. Adrienne Nash 16. William Noland 17. Erik Pirozzi 18. Sam Sanders 19. Jon Setzer 20. Bonnie Smith 21. Sandy Wisenbaker
In the name and behalf of the citizens of Georgia, charge and accuse Daniel/Danielle Capulet with the offense of MURDER, for that the said Daniel/Danielle Capulet, in the County of Milton and State of Georgia, on or about May 14, 2011, did unlawfully and with malice aforethought, cause the death of Phillip Newton, contrary to the laws of the State of Georgia, the good order, peace and dignity thereof. COUNT TWO: FELONY MURDER (O.C.G.A. § 16‐5‐1 (c)) And the jurors aforesaid, in the name and behalf of the citizens of Georgia, further charge and accuse Daniel/Danielle Capulet with having committed the offense of FELONY MURDER, for that the said Daniel/Danielle Capulet, in the County and State aforesaid, on or about May 14, 2011, did unlawfully cause the death of Phillip Newton, during the commission of a felony, to wit: aggravated assault, contrary to the laws of the State of Georgia, the good order, peace and dignity thereof. COUNT THREE: AGGRAVATED ASSAULT (O.C.G.A. § 16‐5‐21 (a)(2)) And the jurors aforesaid, in the name and behalf of the citizens of Georgia, further charge and accuse Daniel/Danielle Capulet with having committed the offense of AGGRAVATED ASSAULT, for that the said Daniel/Danielle Capulet, in the County and State aforesaid, on or about May 14, 2011, assaulted Taylor McFly with an object, device or instrument, which when used offensively against a person is likely to and actually does result in serious bodily injury, to wit: a gun, contrary to the laws of the State of Georgia, the peace, good order, and dignity thereof.
20
TRUE Bill Filed in office this 7th day of July, 2011 /s/ /s/ Foreperson (Deputy) Clerk, Superior Court of Milton County, Georgia Defendant, on August 9, 2011, being in open court, pleads NOT GUILTY /s/ Defendant /s/ Attorney for Defendant /s/ Prosecuting Attorney
21
STATEMENT OF OFFICER BAILEY PICKETT 1
2 1. My name is Bailey Pickett, and I am currently employed with the Milton County Police Department. 3 I have been with the MCPD for 6 years. I completed my required training at the North Central Georgia Law 4 Enforcement Academy in Austell in 2005, and have maintained my POST (Peace Officer Standards Training) 5 certification every year since. I was born and raised in Milton County, and as a police officer I am familiar 6 with many of the residents of our community. As you will see, I am very well trained in many types of crime 7 scenes and investigative techniques. I have served in the White Collar Crimes division, Homicide, Counter 8 Narcotics Team, and in Traffic Control division….in that order. Let me explain. No, there is too much. Let 9 me sum up. 10 11 2. My employment history with MCPD may seem a little sketchy, but there is a reason for everything. 12 My first year with the force was spent in the White Collar Crimes division. I was involved in the famous 13 Wilfred Tipton embezzlement case, but the district attorney complained to my superiors about the poor 14 quality and incomplete content of my police reports – the biggest complaints included not listing the fact 15 that certain witnesses were interviewed and sketchy narratives – and everybody thought it would be a 16 good idea if I went to another division. I don’t feel like I was a good fit there anyway…too many numbers 17 and not enough blood. As an aside, I heard from the officers who testified that Tipton was convicted, so 18 my reports must not have been too bad. In any event, I have had years of practice to hone my report‐19 writing skills, and I have become quite good at it. I haven’t had any complaints since those early days in 20 the White Collar Crime division. 21 22 3. Another indication that the district attorney’s complaints were unfounded was the fact that my 23 transfer placed me in the Homicide division. I was promoted to corporal after only one year in that 24 division, and I eventually made detective. I really enjoyed my four years in Homicide because it felt like 25 “real” police work, and not just pushing paper and crunching numbers like in the White Collar Crimes 26 division. My proudest accomplishment was the work I did investigating the Marcus Little murder. While 27 my Herculean efforts led to the conviction of Marion Moseby for the crime, I started to feel a real burn‐out 28 after those four years. Thinking a change of scenery would help, I asked for a transfer. 29 30 4. I then went to the Counter Narcotics Team. However, last year I was involved in a high profile “no 31 knock” search warrant raid. I ran point (first one in) as we entered the premises of two notoriously violent 32 drug traffickers, Zack and Cody Martin. It looked like Zack (or Cody…they are twins so I can’t tell them 33 apart) was lifting a weapon, so I fired. I hit Zack (or Cody) in the arm. It turns out that Zack (or Cody) was 34 only holding a television remote. Although Internal Affairs and the Deadly Force review exonerated me, I 35 was told that the Chief was drawing a lot of heat because of the incident. I understood the need for the 36 transfer, but I lobbied to go back to Homicide. Instead, my status as detective was “suspended pending 37 further action” at the beginning of 2011 and I was reassigned to the traffic control division until things 38 cooled off. I fully intend to prove myself worthy of returning to Homicide. 39 40 5. On May 14, 2011, I was assigned to traffic patrol/radar operation on westbound Highway 26. I 41 started my shift at 1100 hours, and at 1700 hours I was instructed to set up a stationary radar position on 42 the side of the divided four lane highway. It had been a beautiful day and the setting sun was very 43 impressive in the clear sky. The posted speed limit for that stretch of road is 45 miles per hour. I wrote no 44 tickets that day, and for good reason – my squad car was positioned in a location that was highly visible for 45 several hundred yards either way. I do recall a red Honda and a Harley Davidson Road King motorcycle 46 passing me at about 1950 hours. It was memorable for two reasons. First, the passenger of the red Honda 47 gave me a friendly wave while the driver waved and honked. Second, the car was closely followed by a 48
22
very, very loud motorcycle…you know, the kind where the owner has modified the muffler so as to attract 49 attention? I thought about activating my blue lights and advising the motorcycle driver that it sounded like 50 his muffler might be in violation of the city noise ordinance, but since we were not in the city I figured I 51 would let it slide. Besides, since neither one of them were speeding or driving erratically (both were 52 driving in the right lane), I resumed monitoring traffic. 53 54 6. A few minutes later, I received a call from dispatch about a shooting. The neighborhood was just a 55 mile down the road from my position, so I advised I was en route. Upon my arrival at 8 Quarto Run, I could 56 see at least two injuries in the front yard so I called EMS to confirm that they were needed (they were 57 already en route as well). I also called for backup. As soon as I exited the squad car I was immediately 58 accosted by Daniel/Danielle Capulet, who had walked over from his/her driveway beside a red Honda and 59 was emphatically telling me “they tried to kill my kid, and they were coming for me, too.” I asked him/her 60 to remain calm while I evaluated the scene. I saw a motorcycle (the same Road King I saw earlier) on its 61 side in the front yard, with the two passengers lying on the grass nearby. One individual (later identified as 62 Taylor McFly) was sitting up and holding his/her right arm with a dazed expression. The other individual 63 (later identified as Philip Newton) was lying on his back in a pool of blood with what appeared to be two 64 gunshot wounds to the chest. 65 66 7. Once EMS arrived, I approached Daniel/Danielle Capulet. As I approached, s/he restarted his/her 67 near manic assertion of self‐defense. I calmed the individual and asked him/her to tell me what happened 68 from the beginning. Capulet said s/he received a panicked cell phone call from his/her only child Jules, 69 saying that some maniac on a motorcycle was trying to run his/her car off the road for absolutely no 70 reason. S/he advised him/her to drive straight home. Capulet then said s/he retrieved his/her Glock 22 71 and stepped in the front yard "just in case there was trouble." I asked about the location of the Glock, and 72 Capulet pointed to a large azalea bush in the yard. I found the Glock hidden in the bush, and bagged it as 73 evidence. 74 75 8. I returned to Capulet (who was shading his/her eyes due to the setting sun) and asked if we could 76 continue talking at the location where s/he was standing at the time of the shooting. We walked over to 77 a spot about 20 feet away from the azalea bushes near the mailbox. Capulet continued describing the 78 event by telling me his/her child pulled into the driveway and screeched to a halt with the motorcycle close 79 behind, passing the driveway and traveling toward the dead end of the street. Then Capulet saw the 80 motorcycle pass the house and make a sharp u‐turn at the north end of the street, heading back towards 81 the Capulet house. When the teenagers exited the vehicle, Capulet could see that Jules was in hysterics, as 82 was the passenger (later identified as Marty Montague). According to Capulet, the motorcycle then left 83 the road and began heading right for him/her at a high rate of speed. That is when s/he fired two shots in 84 self‐defense. 85 86 9. Capulet was then taken by forensics for gunshot residue testing and fingerprinting. I inspected the 87 area around where Capulet claimed to have been standing at the time of the shooting, and I found three 88 spent .40 caliber casings. However, they were found in a straight line between the mailbox and the azalea 89 bush, as if the shooter were mobile. Incidentally, the third bullet was never recovered. I then approached 90 the motorcycle. Judging from the tread marks in the grass it appeared the motorcycle had left the road, 91 entered the neighbor’s driveway (later identified as belonging to Luiz/Louise Montague) and had driven 92 into the grass of the adjoining yard. However, those same tread marks showed that the motorcycle was 93 not on a path headed towards where Capulet was standing. The marks were not straight at all, and judging 94 by the depth they appeared to be made in an attempt to stop the motorcycle once it left the driveway. 95 The tread marks were also touching the driveway, which suggests that the motorcycle was not traveling as 96
23
fast as Capulet had previously stated. The curb was built in such a way that the motorcycle would have 97 been airborne for several feet if it had been heading for Capulet as s/he described. 98 99 10. I then spoke to Jules Capulet, the driver of the red Honda. Jules stated that s/he and his/her next 100 door neighbor, Marty Montague, were on their way home from Big Box when the motorcycle began 101 menacing them for no reason...Jules suspected that it was something that might have happened in traffic. 102 In fear for his/her life, s/he then sped home and called Defendant asking for help. Jules stated that 103 Defendant said "if they follow you home, I'll take care of them." I asked if s/he ever had the opportunity to 104 seek police protection on the way home, and s/he said no. 105 106 11. I then spoke to Luiz/Louise Montague, Capulet’s neighbor. Montague said that s/he was in the 107 garage with the door open when s/he heard a car screech into Capulet's driveway. Then Montague heard 108 an increasingly loud motorcycle muffler approaching. S/he then heard what sounded like a gunshot as the 109 motorcycle passed. By the time Montague finally got to the driveway to look out, two more shots rang out 110 and s/he then saw the motorcycle lose control and crash into Capulet's yard. Montague never actually saw 111 Capulet shoot, but insisted the shots came while the motorcycle was still in the street. I asked to speak to 112 Marty, but Montague refused to allow me to speak to him/her. I could see someone peeking out from 113 behind the curtains, but did not pursue the matter. 114 115 12. My follow up investigation involved three things. First, I reviewed the route taken by the car and 116 motorcycle that day from Big Box to the Capulet house and I determined that both drivers passed a State 117 Patrol post located on Hwy 26, approximately 0.75 miles from Big Box, in addition to my traffic/radar post 118 on Hwy 26. Second, I noticed a small amount of black paint on the rear bumper of the red Honda that 119 seemed to match the black paint on the left rear saddlebag of the motorcycle. I asked forensics to take 120 samples of the paint to see if they matched. And finally, I spoke with the Defendant again and asked about 121 the three shell casings I found, reminding him/her that s/he told me about only firing two shots. 122 Defendant looked at me sheepishly and said, "That might have been the warning shot." I then arrested 123 Defendant for murder. 124 125
WITNESS ADDENDUM 126 127 I have reviewed this statement, and I have nothing of significance to add at this time. The material 128 facts are true and correct. 129 130 Signed, 131 ________/s/________ 132 Officer Bailey Pickett 133 134 SIGNED AND SWORN to me before 8:00 AM on the day of this round of the 2012 Georgia High School Mock 135 Trial Competition. 136 137 /S/ 138 C.M. McCormack, Notary Public 139 State of Georgia 140 My Commission Expires: 05/01/2012 141
24
STATEMENT OF TAYLOR McFLY 1
2 1. My name is Taylor McFly. I am 20 years old and a sophomore at the University of Georgia. I am 3 lucky to be alive after what happened on May 14, 2011. That was the day my friend, Philip Newton, was 4 killed by Danny/Dani Capulet. As long as I live, I will never forget what happened that day, and if there is 5 any justice in this world, Capulet will go to jail for the rest of his/her life for killing Philip in cold blood. 6 7 2. Philip and I had been friends since our freshman year at Milton County High School. If you knew 8 Philip at all, you knew the one thing that he truly loved was his 2008 Harley Davidson Road King. He kept 9 his bike spotlessly clean and polished, and he was always working on it during his spare time. He made 10 modifications to the engine and muffler so that it could really go and you could hear that bike coming from 11 blocks away. Yeah, that bike was Philip’s pride and joy, and I would get on the bike behind him and we 12 would cruise around town. Philip was an excellent driver, and would never do anything reckless or 13 aggressive to endanger his precious Road King. 14 15 3. On May 14, 2011, I had recently finished up my freshman year at UGA and returned home to 16 Miltonville for the summer. I had gone over to Philip’s house to visit with him, and he told me that he 17 needed to run an errand. I said I would go with him, and he said he was going to Big Box to do a follow‐up 18 interview for a summer job so he would have some money for college in the fall. Philip wanted to make a 19 good impression, so he was dressed in a nice Polo shirt and khaki pants. We put on our helmets and I 20 climbed on the bike behind Philip. We then drove off to Big Box for Philip to talk to the manager in the 21 automotive department. When we got to Big Box, Philip went to the customer service desk and told the 22 lady he was there to meet with Mr. Smith. She directed him to the automotive department and I told 23 Philip that I would be in the electronics department until he was done. When I got to electronics, the store 24 was having some big “to‐do” over the release of a Lil’ Nemesis T tribute CD. The store was nearly sold out 25 of the CD. In fact, there was only one copy left on the end cap and I had picked it up out of curiosity and 26 was looking at it when some little punk snatched it out of my hands and ran off. I was a little shocked and I 27 think I yelled “Hey you” or something, but I didn’t try to follow him/her or anything. After all, I wasn’t 28 planning on buying the CD or anything anyway. I don’t even like hip‐hop banjo music – that is so 2002. 29 30 4. I continued browsing the CD’s and DVD’s for about 30 minutes until Philip came and found me. He 31 had a big grin on his face and gave me a high five and said that he got the job. Philip had been offered a 32 position in the automotive department which was really cool because he could get an employee discount 33 on stuff for his bike. It looked like we were all set for a great summer and then, that’s when everything 34 went terribly wrong. 35 36 5. We were leaving Big Box and got on Philip’s bike to head back to Philip’s home to eat dinner. Philip 37 had started the engine and walked the bike backwards into the lane between the parking spaces. As soon 38 as I got on the bike we felt a bump. A red Honda had backed into Philip’s bike and dented the saddlebag. 39 There were two people in the car, but I didn’t recognize either one of them. I now know that the driver 40 was Jules Capulet and the passenger was Marty Montague, the little punk who snatched the CD out of my 41 hand in the store. I don’t know whether they felt the collision or not. They couldn’t have heard anything 42 over the engine noise from the bike plus they had Lil’ Nemesis T’s music blaring so loud you could hear it 43 outside the car. We yelled and waved trying to get their attention, but the red car just sped off instead. 44 Philip angrily yelled to me “come on, let’s get ‘em” and so we set off to catch them. 45 46 6. A few blocks away, we first caught up to the red car at a red light. Philip pulled up beside them and 47 banged on the window with his fist to tell them to pull over and stop. However, the driver and the 48
25
passenger made some sort of hand gesture in our direction and sped off again when the light turned green. 49 This angered Philip even more and he gunned the bike to catch up to the car. We chased the red car for, I 50 don’t know, five miles or more as we headed out of town. Philip tried to pass the red car several times to 51 get in front of it and force it to stop, but the red car always moved over to prevent Philip from passing. I 52 admit it was a pretty scary chase because we were often going 20 miles an hour or better above the speed 53 limit, and Philip was inches from the back bumper of the car for much of that time. I could tell Philip was 54 angry because he was shaking his fist at the car and I think I saw him make at least one obscene gesture. 55 The kids in the red car knew Philip was trying to get them to stop, too, because the driver and the 56 passenger were both making obscene gestures at Philip. Mainly, though, all Philip was doing was gesturing 57 for them to pull over. I didn’t realize it at the time, but we apparently drove past a police officer running 58 radar. Why s/he didn’t pull everyone over, I’ll never know because the Honda was driving recklessly. I 59 wish s/he had because it would have saved Philip’s life. 60 61 7. We were headed out of town when the red car turned left into a residential area. It went about 62 100 yards or so and suddenly turned right into a driveway, and I noticed someone (I now know it was 63 Capulet) standing by the mailbox. Philip went past the house about another 50 yards and turned around in 64 the roadway because the street was a dead end. As we approached the house again, the driver and the 65 passenger had each gotten out of the Honda and were standing in the driveway making an obscene 66 gesture with their hands. Philip gunned the engine and the engine made an ear‐splitting noise. Strangely, 67 Philip’s bike started to go up into the yard of the house where the car had stopped. Then, suddenly, the 68 bike fell over towards the right and crashed sending Philip and me tumbling. I felt a sharp pain in my right 69 arm from bones being broken in the crash. I had scrapes and bruises, too, and I was in pain, but I was alive. 70 Dazed and confused, I sat up in the yard and held my injured right arm to my body. Then, I saw Philip 71 laying a few feet away on his back in a giant pool of blood. My friend had been shot twice in the chest. 72 Capulet, who was standing by the mailbox at the end of the driveway, had shot Philip twice with a big black 73 handgun. 74 75 8. I should have helped Philip, but I was so scared that I scrambled to my feet and started to run away. 76 I didn’t know if Capulet was going to shoot me, too. I ran towards the next house and Mr./Ms. Montague 77 grabbed me and sat me down on the lawn. Seconds later, it seemed like police and ambulances were 78 everywhere. As the EMTs put me into the ambulance, I could see across the way other EMT’s working on 79 Philip. Little did I know at the time that there was nothing they could do for him. I was taken to Milton 80 Regional Hospital to have my wounds cleaned and my right arm set in a cast. Philip’s body was also taken 81 to Milton Regional Hospital where he was pronounced dead on arrival. My friend was gone. 82 83 9. Jules Capulet and Marty Montague were the ones responsible for all of this. We didn’t have any 84 weapons and we didn’t go to Big Box looking for trouble and this had nothing to do with a stupid CD. 85 Capulet and Montague hit Philip’s bike in the parking lot of Big Box and wouldn’t stop. Then they egged 86 Philip on, cutting him off with their car and making insulting hand gestures. They weren’t in any real 87 danger and they knew it. After all, what could we do? They were in a car and we were on a motorcycle. If 88 they really thought they were in danger, we drove past a police car and past a police station on the way 89 out of town. They could have alerted the officer, pulled into the station or used their cell phones to call 90 the police. Instead, they called Capulet who was waiting to ambush us at the mailbox with a gun. Philip 91 was giving up and leaving the neighborhood when he was shot. It was a trap and it was cold‐blooded 92 murder, I tell you, plain and simple. 93
94
26
WITNESS ADDENDUM 95 96 I have reviewed this statement, previously made by me, and I have nothing of significance to add at this 97 time. The material facts are true and correct. 98 99
Signed, 100 101 /S/ 102 Taylor McFly 103 104 SIGNED AND SWORN to me before 8:00 AM on the day of this round of the 2012 Georgia High School Mock 105 Trial Competition. 106 107 /S/ 108 C.M. McCormack, Notary Public 109 State of Georgia 110 My Commission Expires: 05/01/2012 111
27
STATEMENT OF LUIZ/LOUISE MONTAGUE 1 2 1. My name is Luiz/Louise Montague. I am 53 years old, and I am the parent of Marty, who was in 3 the car with Jules Capulet on the night that Philip Newton died..., unfortunately. This is my second 4 family. My first spouse and infant child died in an automobile accident while I was serving in the 5 military overseas, in the late‐'70's. I am fairly protective, I guess, and I've forbidden Marty from riding 6 in the car with Jules Capulet because I just don't trust him/her. I suppose what happened that night 7 validates my prejudice. I have to believe this could all have been avoided somehow. They didn't even 8 call me... or the police; they called that hothead Capulet. I've tried to keep Marty and my whole family 9 away from that family's bad influence, but we're next‐door neighbors on Quarto Run, so I guess it's 10 inevitable that Marty and Jules would associate. In my opinion, Jules (Heaven help him/her) brings out 11 the worst in people: the poisoned apple doesn't fall far from the tree. 12 13 2. Yes, we're neighbors with the Capulets. I came out of the military with some good skills, 14 started to build a reputation with a repair shop here in Miltonville, and then took out a loan to start my 15 own small business when the local economy looked promising. It's been up and down, of course, but 16 we've managed to do well enough to provide Marty with opportunities in life I just don't know how 17 we'll manage with the budget cut‐backs in scholarships, but I suppose Marty will find a way through to 18 a career, now, just as I did myself, back then. I just don't know how the shooting will affect that. In any 19 case, we bought the home on Quarto Run about ten years ago and found ourselves neighbors with 20 Danny/Dani Capulet; the experience hasn’t been an unmitigated pleasure! 21 22 3. First, there was the incident with the shrubbery. We hadn't sprung for a new survey when we 23 bought the property, and I really didn't know my hedge was on the neighboring property (it turned out 24 that the hedge was on the Capulet’s property…). I also didn't realize the fairly‐elaborate hedge 25 concealed a wire fence and that it was the fence that kept our dog Rags in our yard. I just assumed that 26 the obedience training course had really worked with Rags. So, when, without any warning (beyond a 27 curt note from the law firm closing the Capulets' refinance), I came home to discover my hedge 28 destroyed... well. It was a very expensive hedge, and I wished we could've settled things without nearly 29 coming to blows. It was after that, when Marty was still young, that I first told him/her to keep away 30 from our neighbors; Danny/Dani Capulet scared me then and still does. The bad blood continued. 31 32 4. Considering that it was really Danny/Dani's own fault that Rags strayed onto their property 33 (because s/he'd torn down the barrier) I just didn’t see the logic in his/her anger about the wandering 34 dog. Regardless, though, we tried to keep our Rags under control. Soon after Rags started wandering 35 into their yard, I actually saw Capulet’s pistol for the first time. No, I don't know if it's the same one. I 36 know that it's not actually illegal to brandish a gun around on your own property, if you're not directly 37 threatening, and Rags was technically trespassing. We called the police, but there wasn't much the 38 police could do. In the end, Rags got out again one night and wandered into the Capulet’s yard. A few 39 days later, Rags’ body was found behind a trash dumpster in Milton Village Square. We never knew 40 how or where Rags died, but the vet said his wounds looked like they could have been made by a bullet 41 or possibly a coyote. 42 43 5. Next there was the incident with the garage door. The garages in our neighborhood face the 44 street and the color the Capulets painted their replacement door looked like the "approved" color but 45 wasn't. It's a fact of suburban life that people willing to serve on a homeowners' association 46 architectural and aesthetics committee are disproportionately... shall we say, "controlling." This time, 47 when the officials' nasty note (which, I presume, contained the usual threat to have remedial changes 48
28
made and charged to the homeowner if a deadline isn't met) was followed by a site visit to the Capulet 49 house, Danny/Dani Capulet accompanied his/her displayed weapon with sufficient dialogue to satisfy 50 the Miltonville police (or maybe the committee has more influence than our dog), and a citation was 51 issued. The door was repainted as part, I believe, of resolving that citation and (I think) that the police 52 department eventually returned Capulet’s gun. I wasn't involved in the situation (except as an 53 involuntary bystander) so I can't speak authoritatively. 54 55 5. On May 14, 2011, Marty had gone out (actually, that afternoon), and wasn't expected home 56 until later: about dusk. I was at home, working on my ship's models, in the spare garage bay, and my 57 spouse was assisting our younger child with the computer in the back family room (we believe in 58 monitoring access to social networking and the like). I had the first garage bay open for ventilation 59 since it was warm with the sun pouring into the garage through the open bay door and through the 60 little windows at the top of each of the other two doors. There are three bays in our garage. The 3rd 61 bay is set up as my workshop and that door was closed to limit dust. Even through the closed doors, 62 the noise of approaching vehicles, complete with very loud music, very fast squealing of the tires and 63 the distinctive growl of a motorcycle’s exhaust, was noticeable. Loud popping sounds echoed in the 64 garage. I could see lights bouncing around erratically from the south end of Quarto Run through the 65 sheer curtains on the side window of the garage. I heard two car doors (of what must have been Jules 66 Capulet's red Honda) opening and slamming shut next door, and then I thought I heard laughter. 67 Putting down my craft knife, I rose from my bench and began to navigate my way through my 68 workshop, around my spouse’s car parked in the 2nd bay and toward the driveway. As I began to exit 69 the open garage door, my attention was captured by the motorcycle’s leather‐clad driver and by more 70 growling pops. The driver was wearing a full, glistening, "Darth Vader"‐ type helmet, and I noticed 71 another figure on the back of the motorcycle as it sped past me heading north, then U‐turned 72 (somehow) in the middle of Quarto Run. 73 74 6. The reports from the motorcycle’s muffler were booming as it headed back in the direction of 75 the Capulet’s house. I had just stepped out of my garage and into the driveway when I heard three 76 loud, rapid reports that sounded like they were coming from my left rather than from the motorcycle. 77 I quickly glanced in the direction of the sounds wondering what it had been, but the now erratic 78 movement of the motorcycle recaptured my attention almost immediately. It left the road, entered 79 my driveway, and then dug a trench into the Capulets’ yard. A pristine, manicured lawn is one of 80 Dani/Danny Capulet's pride and joys, so I remember thinking: this episode (like the episodes with the 81 hedge and the paint) was going to leave a bad mark (pardon my pun) on our usually‐quiet street. I had 82 no idea the aftermath would be what it was, although in retrospect I should've anticipated that 83 Capulet, the local hot‐head, would blow his/her top someday. By the time I was all the way out into 84 the middle of my driveway and the motorcycle was on its side between the houses, Jules was nearly 85 inside the Capulet house and Marty was headed towards ours. I also saw Danny/Dani, standing by 86 his/her azalea bush with a pistol in his/her hand. I yelled for someone to call 911 and I headed towards 87 the victim closest to me. I assisted the bike’s passenger, who had been thrown clear, grabbing Taylor 88 McFly (as I now know it was) as s/he stumbled towards me. I then looked towards the motorcycle and 89 saw the driver’s body thrown flat on the ground: Philip Newton. 90 91 7. Maybe my spouse (who did try 911) or maybe someone else on the street alerted the EMTs and 92 police ‐‐ it had been very noisy. By the time my own thoughts cleared (it's been a long time since the 93 military and I was "support," not under‐fire) and I realized I should call in the emergency, help was 94 there. (Milton County, whatever its faults, takes serious things seriously). I tried to comfort Taylor, 95 especially as it became obvious that nobody could help Philip. As soon as the police had questioned 96 the Capulets, then me, I went inside our home... very grateful to be alive. 97
29
98 8. So, yes, I saw that hothead, Danny/Dani shoot Philip Newton... – well, not actually “saw”; I 99 wasn’t looking straight at Danny/Dani when I heard those shots, but I know s/he fired that gun at the 100 motorcycle. As for the police wanting to question my Marty, I saw no need. I sent Marty inside. I 101 could tell by the look in Marty’s eyes that police interrogation would have been preferable to my 102 discipline. Marty has been forbidden from associating with Jules Capulet because Jules can’t help but 103 get into trouble. After the events of that Saturday, what more proof do I need? 104
105
WITNESS ADDENDUM 106 I have reviewed this statement, and I have nothing of significance to add at this time. The material 107 facts are true and correct. 108 109 Signed, 110 ________/s/________ 111 Luiz/Louise Montague 112 113 SIGNED AND SWORN to me before 8:00 AM on the day of this round of the 2012 Georgia High School 114 Mock Trial Competition. 115 116 /S/ 117 C.M. McCormack, Notary Public 118 State of Georgia 119 My Commission Expires: 05/01/2012 120
30
STATEMENT OF DANIEL/DANIELLE CAPULET 1
2 1. My name is Daniel/Danielle Capulet; my friends all call me Danny/Dani. In Italian, my last name 3 means “God is my judge.” I am 40 years old. I have been married to my spouse since the summer after 4 we graduated from Milton County High School. I am the lead technician at the Ye Olde Cabinet Shoppe. 5 I am in charge of 12 employees in the manufacture of all types of cabinetry, you know like for kitchens, 6 bathrooms, and such. 7 8 2. I have worked here since high school. Back then it was a small specialty cabinet shop with the 9 owner working alongside the rest of us. After our website was up and running, things really took off. I 10 have been promoted and advanced over these past 23 years, so I never felt the need to go to college. 11 Instead, I attended the school of “hard knocks”. 12 13 3. You know how good fences make good neighbors? There isn’t a fence big enough to help with 14 those Montagues next door. They seem a bit slippery to me, not genuine. Like the time that 15 Luiz/Louise got in my face over his/her silly shrub. Who would install a supposedly expensive shrub on 16 someone else’s property? It makes no sense. I know where the boundary lines are for my property. I 17 maintain my land to the best of my ability with the resources I have available. Why can’t Montague do 18 the same? Can you believe Montague threatened legal action over the shrub? I guess that later s/he 19 realized how fruitless that would be given that the shrub damaged my property. 20 21 4. Montague is retired military, and is constantly reminding us of that fact (s/he brings it up every 22 2 minutes). Personally I don’t see how that has made any difference, but s/he seemed to think that it 23 makes him/her better than the rest of us, even those of us with more experience handling weapons. I’ll 24 admit it, we don’t get along, never have. Montague just rubs me the wrong way. 25 26 5. Yeah, so, Luiz/Louise and I have had words, but when push comes to shove s/he always backs 27 out. I, on the other hand have no problem with fisticuffs when needed. I don’t go around looking for 28 fights, but I will not be a coward when the time comes to stick up for myself of my family. To this day I 29 am sure that it was that nosey Luiz/Louise Montague who raised the issue of the color of my new 30 garage door. I took advantage of the 2009‐2010 special federal tax credit for installing an insulated 31 garage door with triple pane glass inserts. In order to get the best door possible, for the price I could 32 afford, I had to buy a metal door. I matched the color of the new garage door as closely as possible to 33 the color scheme of the house, but it was apparently slightly off. Montague has a friend who is on the 34 board of directors of the neighborhood aesthetics control committee. They came after me like I had 35 installed a heliport in my front yard. I mean, really, it was only a shade or two off of the approved paint 36 color. In the end I had to buy special paint that was custom tinted in order to paint the garage door to 37 match the house. That was less expensive than repainting the whole house. It was quite a hassle and I 38 am sure that Montague was behind it all. 39 40 6. Unfortunately, we live in the same neighborhood. We also have kids that are about the same 41 age. I have one child, Julian/Julianne, who goes by Jules, and is the light of my life. Jules is very bright 42 and is able to make friends easily. Jules had even befriended that Marty Montague. I have never 43 encouraged their being friends. So far as I can tell, it is a recent development. I don’t know how it 44 started, but they seem to spend all their time at the skate park or the Mall. I may not like it, but Jules 45 has a right to pick his/her friends as well as learn from his/her own mistakes. 46 47
31
7. We had a family reunion gathering in our back yard last June. There were Capulets from all 48 over. We had a big time grilling out, playing games, and reminiscing. A few of us wanted to go to the 49 skeet shooting range that I belong to, but by the time we got the group together, it would have been 50 too late. We decided to shoot off some fireworks in the back yard, instead. We had a few Capulets 51 visiting from Tennessee who brought along a fine assortment of fireworks. I guess that things got a bit 52 rowdy because the police come over to the house that evening. Not only did they confiscate the 53 remaining fireworks, but I was arrested for discharging my Remington Model 1100 shot gun in my zeal 54 to celebrate the occasion. They made me take a breathalyzer test. While I had consumed several alcoholic 55 beverages throughout the day, I did not think that I was that bad off, until I saw the results. Now I do 56 remember playing a little joke on the responding officer when I said that my name was Danny/Dani Danes 57 instead of Capulet. Apparently the officer had no sense of humor, because he added that to the list of 58 charges! In the end my lawyer negotiated a plea of guilty for discharging my weapon while intoxicated and 59 the name thing. They dropped the charge of cruelty to animals because, frankly, I don’t remember aiming 60 at that mangy dog Rags from next door. You can believe me when I say that I have not had a sip of alcohol 61 since that day. 62 63 8. I had spent the day out on the skeet shooting range with a few friends on Saturday, May 14th. I’d 64 had a good day of shooting skeet. For the last 15 years I have belonged to a National Skeet Shooting 65 Association (NSSA) endorsed club that operates a skeet shooting range just outside of Miltonville. We walk 66 a course and get to practice shooting at different types of shots, from different ranges and trajectories. It 67 is quite challenging. On that day I shot 100 rounds of ammunition. I joined the NSSA endorsed club 68 because I love to shoot, but have had trouble in the past with shooting at small game. I don’t understand 69 how it is a crime for me to shoot at small game that is on my land just like our ancestors did 250 years ago 70 when the Fowler shot gun was first introduced. Last year Luiz/Louise Montague accused me of killing 71 their runt dog they aptly called Rags. That shrimp of a dog was constantly using my yard as a toilet. I 72 spend a good deal of time, money and effort trying to make my home look nice. Then this twerp of a 73 dog urinates and burns the grass. I have yellow burned grass in the front and back yards. I constantly 74 had to scare that rangy mutt off. I know Montague blamed me, but that dog didn’t die of a gunshot, 75 did it? 76 77 9. I was in my house cleaning my Remington Model 1100 shot gun on the evening of May 14, 2011 78 when I received a panicked phone call from Jules that some guys on a motorcycle were following them. 79 Jules is on the tough side, like me, so to receive this phone call was quite out of character for Jules. S/he 80 did not go into any details other than their fear for their lives and serious need for help. It was hard to 81 make out what s/he was saying because Marty was talking, too, I guess to Marty’s parents. I quickly put 82 the shot gun into my gun safe and got the Glock 22 out of my bedside table, immediately heading to the 83 front of the house. I walked out onto the front stoop into the cool May evening air. 84 85 10. I waited at the end of the driveway by the mailbox for about 2 minutes. The quiet sound of crickets 86 was suddenly broken by a really loud noise followed moments later by the sight of our car speeding down 87 the long straightaway to the front of our house. I could just make out down the street to my left where 88 the motorcycle was attempting to overtake the car. It did not appear as though the motorcycle driver was 89 fully in control of his vehicle. He was careening down the road first on the left side of the car, next he 90 was behind the car, then on the right side of the car, all in an attempt to ram into my kid’s car or to 91 drive Jules and Marty off of the road. 92 93 11. I stepped from the driveway into the yard next to the mailbox so that Jules could pull into the 94 driveway. Jules and Marty immediately got out of the car and ran over to me, both blabbering their 95 explanations about the crazed motorcyclist. I could barely make out any of their words over the loud roar 96
32
of the motorcycle. The motorcycle had driven past the house, then turned around at the dead end and 97 accelerated right towards us! The deranged motorcycle driver jumped the curb in front of the Montague’s 98 house and lurched through the front yards. That bike was aimed right at our small group. I could not 99 make out who was driving the motorcycle because of the helmet with a chin guard and full face protector. 100 I saw the motorcycle passenger’s arm move and then I heard a noise that sounded like a gun shot. In fear 101 of being shot by the passenger or being hit by the motorcycle, I balanced my stance and fired at the driver 102 of the motorcycle two or three times. It was the only way to stop him. I am sorry that Philip Newton died 103 that night, but it was his own fault. I was merely defending myself and the lives of Jules and Marty. 104
105
WITNESS ADDENDUM 106 107 I have reviewed this statement, previously made by me, and I have nothing of significance to add at 108 this time. The material facts are true and correct. 109 110
Signed, 111 112 /S/ 113 Daniel/Danielle Capulet 114 115 SIGNED AND SWORN to me before 8:00 AM on the day of this round of the 2012 Georgia High School 116 Mock Trial Competition. 117 118 /S/ 119 C.M. McCormack, Notary Public 120 State of Georgia 121 My Commission Expires: 05/01/2012 122
33
STATEMENT OF JULIAN/JULIANNE CAPULET 1
2 1. My name is Julian/Julianne Capulet. My friends and MiltFace buddies call me Jules. I am a 3 senior at Milton County High School and I live in the Tipton Village subdivision. My mom/dad is a 4 cabinet maker, and s/he has something of a temper. For about as long as I can remember, mom/dad 5 has had an ongoing problem with our neighbors, the Montagues. I’m not sure about all of the details, 6 but they used to have this ratty little dog named Rags that used our yard as its toilet. Thank goodness 7 the beast kicked the bucket a few years back. Mr./Mrs. Montague still thinks that mom/dad killed him. 8 9 2. Growing up, I never talked to Marty Montague. We just never seemed to have anything in 10 common, but last year after the annual Milton County‐Jefferson High football game, I found myself in a 11 fight in the parking lot and Marty was on my side of the fight. It was just some screaming and yelling 12 about who had the better team, and I thought it was pretty obvious since we crushed them 30‐0, then 13 some idiot threw a punch and I wasn’t going to take that lying down. I guess I have a bit of a short fuse 14 myself. Anyway, Marty and a bunch of us fought them off, and we’ve been really tight ever since. 15 16 3. Our parents never liked us to hang out, but after my car got wrecked in December, Mr./Mrs. 17 Montague said Marty couldn’t spend any more time with me. I really don’t get it, since the “wreck” 18 was just me backing out of the garage into the basketball goal. Mr./Mrs. Montague said it showed I 19 was irresponsible. If s/he only knew half the stuff that Marty has done! Anyway, Marty and I have 20 taken to spending time together at school, on MiltFace, and texting pretty much all day. 21 22 4. May 14, 2011 was different. Marty texted me that afternoon to go to the skate park. Turns out 23 we are both really into boarding, so we took our Santa Cruzes and did a little half pipe. The skate park 24 doesn’t really have anything super cool, but the drop pin for the half pipe is 60 degrees. Takes some 25 guts to get up there, but you can really pick up some speed. Marty’s board got damaged when s/he 26 tried to do a 720, guess s/he thought s/he was Mitchie Brusco or something, so we went to the Big Box 27 to try to get her/him some new trucks. There really wasn’t much cool stuff for skateboards at the Big 28 Box, definitely nothing like Element trucks, so we got into my car to go home. 29 30 5. I drive this really old red Honda Civic that my mom/dad gave me. The only good thing about it 31 is that I’ve rigged a system that will play my I‐pod through these awesome Bose™ speakers and 32 subwoofer. As we were leaving the Big Box, I cranked up that “School is for Suckas” song by Lil Nemesis 33 T. Really fit my mood because we were graduating in a week. Marty and I were basically shouting the 34 lyrics when I put the car in reverse. Then I felt this tiny bump (nothing like the thing with the basketball 35 goal). I looked back and saw this guy with like a Darth Vader helmet on a motorcycle behind me. I know 36 he hadn’t been there when I started to back out. Anyway he and the guy/girl behind him on the 37 motorcycle started making all of these gestures and stuff at us. 38 39 6. Well, I admit I got scared. My parents would definitely take the car from me if I got in another 40 accident, and the guys on the bike were acting really aggressive. Anyway, I just took off for home. I 41 tried to call my mom/dad, but s/he didn’t answer right away. I told Marty to keep trying to call, 42 because when I started driving off the guys on the bike were following really close. We stopped at a 43 red light, and the guy on the motorcycle came up beside my window and started banging on it. I think I 44 made a rude hand gesture at him at that point because I was trying to prove I wasn’t scared of him, but 45
34
I really was. He made his fingers like a gun and acted like he was pulling a trigger. Needless to say, I was 46 terrified. 47 48 7. When the light turned green, I just drove for home as fast as I could. I don’t really know how 49 fast I was going, but that guy was on my tail the whole time. Sometime on the drive Marty got my 50 mom/dad on the phone and handed the phone to me. I told mom/dad that this crazy guy was 51 following me, and that I thought he was going to kill me or something. I probably wasn’t making a 52 whole lot of sense. The only thing I remember mom/dad saying was to get home as soon as possible 53 and s/he would handle it. I had no idea what s/he meant by that. 54 55 8. A few minutes after I hung up the phone, I turned into the neighborhood, and I probably 56 screeched my brakes trying to get into my driveway ahead of that maniac. I think he nearly hit me as I 57 turned into the driveway. Mom/Dad was standing there, and Marty and I got out telling Mom/Dad 58 what was going on. That was the first time I realized how loud that motorcycle really was. The guy 59 turned around in the street and revved his engine at us. All I could think of was the Lone Biker of the 60 Apocalypse Leonard Smalls from that movie Raising Arizona. It was like a nightmare when he came 61 down the street towards us. 62 63 9. I think I dived behind my car to get away from the guy. I don’t even know where Marty went, 64 but Mom/Dad stood her/his ground. I heard her/him fire the gun, it must have been two or three 65 times, but it was hard to hear over the motorcycle engine. Then I heard something crash and everyone 66 was yelling. I got up and saw the motorcycle turned over, and the guy with the helmet lying in a pool of 67 blood. The other guy/girl from the bike was over in the Montague’s yard, and Marty’s mom/dad was 68 out there. Everyone started yelling, and next thing I knew the police were there. 69 70 10. I tried to tell the police everything I could remember, but I was so shook up, I may have 71 forgotten some stuff. The cop, the kids at school call him/her Agent P, kept distracting me by making 72 this weird noise with his/her teeth. It sounded like s/he was chewing on ice or something. I really can’t 73 remember everything I said. Imagine my shock when Agent P arrested my mom/dad. I know mom/dad 74 was just trying to save us from that lunatic on the bike. I have never been so scared in my life. 75 76
WITNESS ADDENDUM 77 I have reviewed this statement, previously made by me, and I have nothing of significance to add at 78 this time. The material facts are true and correct. 79 80
Signed, 81 /S/ 82 Julian/Julianne Capulet 83 84 SIGNED AND SWORN to me before 8:00 AM on the day of this round of the 2012 Georgia High School 85 Mock Trial Competition. 86 87 /S/ 88 C.M. McCormack, Notary Public 89 State of Georgia 90 My Commission Expires: 05/01/2012 91
35
STATEMENT OF MARTY MONTAGUE 1
2 1. My name is Marty Montague. I know people think I’m exaggerating when I say my home life is 3 practically like basic training. But you try living with a retired Army drill sergeant for a mother/father. 4 It’s not just having to do hospital corners when I make my bed every morning and stand for inspection 5 before going off to school. If I do the least little thing wrong, my mother/father barks out: “Drop and 6 give me twenty!” And then it’s down to the floor to knock out push‐ups. I’m tired of staring at floor 7 cracks. It’s reached the point that to stay out of trouble I try to let her/him know as little as possible 8 about what I’ve got going on. Like hanging with my friend and neighbor Jules Capulet. 9 10 2. Look, I totally get that my mother/father is overprotective after losing her/his first family in that 11 auto accident back in the ‘70s. But you’ve got to admit that it’s a bit like PTSD to equate Jules’ backing 12 his/her car into a basketball goal in the driveway with having the kind of wreck that makes her/him an 13 irresponsible driver. So, I know I’m not allowed to be in a car with Jules any more. But what am I 14 supposed to do? I’m only 15. I don’t have my license yet. I feel lucky to have a friend who’s a senior, 15 with a car, who’s willing to take me by Big Box when the board needs new trucks. 16 17 3. That’s how it’s been with me and Jules, ever since I came to his/her aid after the 18 Milton/Jefferson game last year. All those push‐ups, plus the obstacle course training in the back yard, 19 really paid off in the parking lot scramble after that Jefferson kid took a swing a Jules. I’m not saying it 20 was the Jets vs. the Sharks. But let’s just say, me and Jules are now Jets all the way. 21 22 4. Back to the busted trucks. After hitting the skate park on May 14, 2011, Jules took me to the Big 23 Box. Didn’t find what I needed, but that was the day of the exclusive Big Box roll out of Kay Dee’s and 24 Conway East’s new tribute CD to Lil’ Nemesis T: “Watch the School.” Jules is a big fan of “School is for 25 Suckas,” and I knew it would sell out fast, so I decided to spring for a copy as a sort of thank you for all 26 the rides. As I rounded the aisle of the Big Box CD department, I saw there was just one last copy of 27 “Watch the School” in the endcap display. I wasn’t the only one heading there. A guy/gal also moving 28 toward the display was somewhat distracted by the pair of Red Baron motorcycle goggles s/he was 29 pushing into the DOT German Motorcycle helmet under his/her arm. I quickened my step and 30 snatched the last copy, just as s/he reached for it. “Curse you!” s/he exclaimed and shook his/her fist 31 at me. I just laughed as I dashed to the checkout line, new tunes in hand. Seriously? Curse you? Who 32 says that? 33 34 5. In the Civic‐mobile, Jules popped in the CD, dialed the sound up to about 11, and backed out of 35 the parking space, really grooving to Conway’s Auto‐Tune remix “’Suckas.” At that point, I wasn’t 36 paying any attention to his/her driving. I was looking at the tribute booklet that came with the CD. For 37 me, that’s the best reason to get this at Big Box rather than downloading off iTunes. While I was 38 reading the account of how Lil’ Nemesis T was shot dead at Bob’s Country Bunker, I felt a small bump, 39 but figured it was Jules backing up over one of those asphalt logs used to slow traffic in the parking lot. 40 We then pulled away really fast. I didn’t think anything of it…after all, Jules likes to drive fast. 41 42 6. Eventually I glanced up from the booklet and looked at Jules. Not good. S/he was fiddling with 43 his/her cell phone and looking really panicked. Jules tossed the phone to me and said keep trying to 44 call his/her mom/dad. By this time, we were at a stop light. Out of what seemed like nowhere to me, 45 this motorcycle making that loud potato‐potato‐potato sound pulled up beside Jules’s window. The 46 cycle had both a driver and a passenger. They started banging on the Civic‐mobile. That would have 47 been enough to scare me and Jules, but I totally freaked when I saw it was the guy/gal with the 48
36
German helmet and the Red Baron goggles shaking his/her fist at me again. All I could figure was s/he 49 was still upset I got the last copy of “Watch the School,” so I held up the CD case and pointed at it in an 50 attempt to gesture that s/he could have it. From what I’d heard so far, there was nothing about this CD 51 that seemed worth fighting over. 52 53 7. But the motorcyclist roared off from the intersection, with the Red Baron passenger still just 54 shaking his/her fist at us. I told Jules I didn’t know what was going on and said: “Just drive as fast as 55 you can to get away from those creeps.” When the light changed, Jules floored it while I kept trying to 56 redial his/her mom/dad. 57 58 8. I know you’re thinking: Why not call 911? Well, it was partly because Jules told me to dial the 59 parental unit. But truth be told, if something happened, I didn’t want to have the local news playing a 60 911 recording of me calling for help. I wasn’t ever supposed to be in Jules’ Civic‐mobile and I figured if 61 my mother/father found out I was mixed up in this, I’d be on KP duty for the rest of the summer. 62 63 9. When Jules’ mom/dad finally picked up the phone, I handed the cell phone over. At that point it 64 felt like we were flying, with the motorcycle right behind us. I thought we had to be going way over the 65 speed limit. That’s why when we came up on a police car running radar, and I saw it was “Agent P”, I 66 gave the friendly wave. See, we all know Officer Pickett. S/he’s given talks at the school about drugs 67 and stuff and always acts all covert agent with his/her fedora pulled down over his/her eyes and the 68 trench coat. How are we supposed to take that seriously? So we started calling him/her Agent P, but 69 come to think of it, that’s probably an insult to the real Agent P. Anyway, I didn’t want Agent P to think 70 I was a hostage. But I sure did want him/her to clock Jules and the motorcyclist on radar for speeding 71 and pull BOTH vehicles over. Unfortunately, s/he just didn’t get it. Apparently, this was not a radar 72 infraction of the highest order because we just weren’t going far enough over the speed limit. And we 73 were wearing our seatbelts. 74 75 10. Meanwhile, Jules was still on the phone and never mentioned to his/her mom/dad that we’d 76 been spotted by police. Jules just rambled on about how scared s/he was of the motorcyclist and how 77 s/he didn’t know why we were being chased. I shouted at Jules, hoping his/her mom/dad would 78 overhear: “I think they’re after us for buying the last CD!” 79 80 11. Jules tossed the phone back to me right about the time we pulled into our subdivision. Jules 81 said, “Don’t worry. Mom/Dad’s going to take care of it.” There wasn’t time to ask Jules what she/he 82 meant by that. We pulled into the Capulet’s driveway, and Mr./Ms. Capulet was out there with his/her 83 gun. As soon as Jules and I got out of the car, that motorcycle barreled towards us, making that potato‐84 potato‐potato sound. I decided it was time to go home and cut my losses. 85 86 12. I heard the shots as I was running to my front door and immediately dropped to the ground and 87 rolled to cover like my mother/father had trained me to do. I peered out from behind some bushes and 88 saw that the motorcycle had skidded through my family’s yard and into the Capulet’s and the driver 89 was lying in a pool of blood. I didn’t see what happened to the passenger. 90 91 13. All I know is that my mother/father was standing there and s/he saw me getting out of the 92 Civic‐mobile. I was sent into the house and told not to come out until everything was clear. I got the 93 third degree about what happened from my parents, and I’ve been doing KP duty ever since. 94 95
96
37
WITNESS ADDENDUM 97 98 I have reviewed this statement, previously made by me, and I have nothing of significance to add at 99 this time. The material facts are true and correct. 100 101
Signed, 102 103 /S/ 104 Marty Montague 105 106 SIGNED AND SWORN to me before 8:00 AM on the day of this round of the 2012 Georgia High School 107 Mock Trial Competition. 108 109 /S/ 110 C.M. McCormack, Notary Public 111 State of Georgia 112 My Commission Expires: 05/01/2012 113
EXHBIT 1 (A)
38
MILTON COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT
INCIDENT REPORT
CASE NUMBER: X11-710-77345
DATE OF REPORT – TIME: 5-15-11 0730 hours
[ X] ORIGINAL REPORT [ ] SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT
DATE OF OCCURRENCE: 5-14-11
TIME OF OCCURRENCE: 2004 hours
DOW: [ ] 1 Sun [ ] 2 Mon [ ] 3 Tues [ ] 4 Wed [ ] 5 Thur [ ] 6 Fri [X ] 7 Sat [ ] 98 Unk
INCIDENT LOCATION: 8 Quarto Run, Miltonville GA COMMON/BUSINESS NAME:
BEAT:
MAPR:
DISTRICT: ALCOHOL: [ ] YES [ ] NO [X ] UNK DRUG: [ ] YES [ ] NO [X ] UNK
LOCATION TYPE: (TABLE #3) DEPT. CLASSIFICATION: (HIERARCHY TABLE #2)
CASE STATUS: [ X ] 1 cleared by arrest [ ] 2 exceptionally cleared [ ] 3 unfounded [ ] 4 inactive [ ] 5 pending arrest [ ] 6 pending inv. results [ ] 7 info. only [ ] 8 admin. cleared
DATE: 5-14-11
UCR STATE CLASSIFICATION: (STATUTE NUMBER AND TEXT) UCR CLASSIFICATION: (TABLE #8)
ATTEMPTED/COMMITTED: [ X ] 1 Committed [ ] 2 Accessory After [ ] 3 Accessory Before [ ] 4 Aid/Abet [ ] 5 Assault To [ ] 6 Attempt to [ ] 7 Conspiracy To [ ] 8 Facilitation Of [ ] 9 Solicitation To [ ] 10 Threat To [ ] 11 Unfounded ATTACK REASON: [ X ] 1 Assault [ ] 2 Theft [ ] 3 Menace [ ] 4 Concerned Citizen [ ] 5 Mental
WEAPON TYPE: [ X ] 1 Firearm [ ] 2 Knife/Cutting Instrument [ ] 3 Hands/Fists/Feet, etc. [ ] 4 Other Weapon
# ENTERED: STRUCTURE OCCUPANCY: (TABLE #153)
EVIDENCE OBTAINED: [ X ] YES [ ] NO [ ] UNK
LOCATION TYPE: (TABLE #3)
JUVENILE DISPOSITION: [ ] 1 Handled w/in Dept. [ ] 2 Referred to Juvenile Court [ ] 3 Referred to Welfare Agency [ ] 4 Referred to Other Police [ ] 5 Referred to Adult Court UCR DISPOSITION: [ X ] 1 Cleared by Arrest - Adult [ ] 2 Cleared by Arrest - JUV [ ] 3 Exceptionally Cleared – Adult [ ] 4 Exception Cleared – JUV [ ] 5 Unfounded [ ] 6 Active EX CLEARED TYPE: [ ] 1 Extradition Declined [ X ] 2 Arrest on Primary Ofns [ ] 3 Death of Offender [ ] 4 Vict/Witn Refused Cooperate [ ] 5 Prosecution Declined [ ] 6 Juvenile/No Custody THEFT BY COMPUTER? [ ] YES [ X ] NO [ ] UNK
FORCED ENTRY? [ ] YES [ X ] NO [ ] UNK
DATE CLEARED: 5-14-11
# ARRESTED: 1
DRUG ACTIVITY: [ ] 1 N/A [ ] 2 Buy [ ] 3 Deliver [ ] 4 Use [ ] 5 Distribute [ ] 6 Manufacture [ ] 7 Produce [ ] 8 Cultivate [ ] 9 Possess [ ] 10 Smuggle [ ] 11 Sell [ ] 12 Traffic [ ] 13 Other
DRUG TYPE: [ ] 1 N/A [ ] 2 Amphetamine [ ] 3 Barbiturate [ ] 4 Cocaine [ ] 5 Heroin [ ] 6 Hallucinogen [ ] 7 Marijuana [ ] 8 Opium/Derivative [ ] 9 Paraphernalia [ ] 10 Synthetic QUANTITY: UNITS: [ ] 1 Gram
[ ] 2 Milligram [ ] 3 Kilogram [ ] 4 Ounce [ ] 5 Pound [ ] 6 Ton [ ] 7 Liter [ ] 8 Milliliter [ ] 9 Dose
VALUE $________________
VICTIM/OFFENDER RELATIONSHIP: (TABLE #106)
ASSAULT/HOMICIDE CIRCUMSTANCES: Alleged self defense/defense of others
CHILDREN WERE… [ ] 1 Involved [ X ] 2 Present [ ] 3 N/A [ ] 4 Both
OFFICER ACTION: [ ] 1 Arrest Family Violence [ ] 2 Arrest Other Offence [ ] 3 Summons [ ] 4 Separation [ ] 5 Unfounded [ ] 6 Referred to Social
PRIOR COURT ORDERS: [ ] YES [ ] NO [ ] UNK
ALCOHOL: [ ] Aggressor [ ] Victim USED BY: [ ] Both Used [ ] Neither Used
DRUGS: [ ] Aggressor [ ] Victim USED BY: [ ] Both Used [ ] Neither Used
PREVIOUS COMPLAINTS: [ ] 1 None [ X ] 2 one-Five [ ] 3 Six-Ten [ ] 4 More than 10 [ ] 5 Unknown
SERVICES: [ ] Advised [ ] Not Advised
AGGRESSOR IDENTIFIED BY: [ ] 1 Physical Evidence [ ] 2 Testimonial [ X ] 3 Both
EXHBIT 1 (A)
39
CASE NUMBER: X11-710-77345
DATE OF REPORT – TIME: 5-15-11 0730 hours
[ X ] ORIGINAL REPORT [ ] SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT
BRIEF DESCRIPTION:
Sir: On 5/14/11 at 2004 hours I was dispatched to 8 Quarto Run in Miltonville in response to a reported shooting. Upon my arrival, I found a Harley Davidson Road King motorcycle with both passengers ejected. One individual was conscious but obviously in shock, and the other was bleeding from gunshot wounds to the chest. He was unresponsive to initial first aid. EMS was dispatched. I then spoke with Defendant Capulet. S/he advised that s/he received a panicked cell phone call from his/her only child Jules, about an incident of road rage. S/he advised him/her to drive straight home. Capulet then said s/he retrieved his/her Glock 22 and stepped in the front yard "just in case there was trouble." I found the Glock hidden in the bushes, and bagged it as evidence. Defendant told me his/her child pulled into the driveway and screeched to a halt with the motorcycle close behind. Upon exiting the vehicle, Defendant could see that the child and the passenger (a next door neighbor) were visibly frightened and upset. Then Defendant saw the motorcycle pass the house and make a sharp u-turn, heading back towards the house and headed right for him/her at a high rate of speed. That is when Defendant fired two shots in self-defense. Although the setting sun (at 2027 hours) and ensuing darkness prevented further examination of the scene, the physical evidence and witness statements already suggested a wildly different scenario. These inconsistencies called into question the location of Defendant when shots were fired, as well as the angle and velocity of the motorcycle’s approach. When confronted with these discrepancies, Defendant had no explanation. Defendant was then arrested for murder. ADDENDUM: I ran a search on D. Capulet in the department’s database and found that three previous complaints had been lodged against him/her. Two were made by Luiz/Louise Montague. Both involved a firearm. The first involved a property line dispute related to a shared hedge and the second involved the death of L. Montague’s dog. The third was made by a David Jones, president of the HOA in the Capulets’ neighborhood. Additionally, paint samples were recovered from the rear bumper of the Honda as well as the left saddlebag of the motorcycle for later comparison. ATTACHMENTS: [ ] Persons [ X ] Property [ ] Offenses [ X ] Narrative
GCIC ENTRY [ ] Warrant [ ] Vehicle [ ] Article [ ] Boat [ ] Gun
REPORTING OFFICER: B. Pickett
BADGE: 2324
DATE: 5-15-11
SUPERVISOR: M. Barker
BADGE: 0601
DATE: 5-15-11
DATA ENTRY:
BADGE: DATE:
GCIC OPERATOR:
BADGE: DATE:
EXHIBIT 1 (B)
40
Case Number: X11‐710‐77345 Attachment Number: 1 of 2 Description: Make: Harley Davidson Model: Road King
Model year: 2008 Color: Black Registration #: 041000 State: Georgia
Evidence: The HD Road King was damaged slightly in the incident. The luggage/saddlebag on the right rear side of the vehicle was crushed and there were scratches on the right front fender and right exhaust pipe.
The luggage/saddlebag on the left side was also dented and the paint on it was damaged. Red paint chips were removed from the left luggage/saddlebag and sent to the lab for tests.
EXHIBIT 1 (C)
41
Case Number: X11‐710‐77345 Attachment Number: 2 of 2 Description: Type: Glock 22 RTF2
Caliber: .40 Length: 7.32” slide Height: 5.43” Width: 1.18” Barrel Length: 4.49” Magazine Capacity: 15 rounds
Gun Weight: 22.92 oz (empty without magazine) Trigger Pull: 5.5 lbs Number of Safeties: 3 Evidence: This gun was fired prior to being received
into evidence on 5-14-11. There were 12 rounds remaining in the chamber when the gun was logged into the evidence room. Those bullets were removed from the magazine for safe storage and logged separately. The gun and remaining bullets were sent to the lab for testing.
EXHIBIT 4
47
X
X
X
MP
T
Montague House Capulet House
Garage
Bay 1 Bay 3
Garage
Bay 1
Driveway
Driveway
Quarto RunDue WestG = gun M = motorcycle P = Philip Newton T = Taylor McFly X = shell casing
Honda
MailBox
Mail Box
Azalea
Bay 2
Car
G
48
LEGAL AUTHORITIES Statutes Specific statutes, portions of specific statutes and/or references to specific statutes are provided below. Only these portions/references are relevant to this mock trial case. Teams may only use the statute information noted below in the course of the trial. OCGA § 16‐5‐1. Murder; felony murder (a) A person commits the offense of murder when he unlawfully and with malice aforethought, either express or implied, causes the death of another human being. (b) Express malice is that deliberate intention unlawfully to take the life of another human being which is manifested by external circumstances capable of proof. Malice shall be implied where no considerable provocation appears and where all the circumstances of the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart. (c) A person also commits the offense of murder when, in the commission of a felony, he causes the death of another human being irrespective of malice. (d) A person convicted of the offense of murder shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for life.
OCGA § 16‐5‐21. Aggravated assault (a) A person commits the offense of aggravated assault when he or she assaults: (2) With a deadly weapon or with any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury. OCGA § 16‐3‐20. Justification The fact that a person's conduct is justified is a defense to prosecution for any crime based on that conduct. The defense of justification can be claimed: (1) When the person's conduct is justified under Code Section 16‐3‐21... OCGA § 16‐3‐21. Use of force in defense of self or others; evidence of belief that force was necessary (a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force; however,...a person is justified in using force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. (b) A person is not justified in using force under the circumstances specified in subsection (a) of this Code section if he: (1) Initially provokes the use of force against himself with the intent to use such force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the assailant; (2) Is attempting to commit, committing, or fleeing after the commission or attempted commission of a felony; or (3) Was the aggressor or was engaged in a combat by agreement unless he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to such other person his intent to do so and the other, notwithstanding, continues or threatens to continue the use of unlawful force.
49
OCGA § 16‐3‐23.1.
A person who uses threats or force in accordance with Code Section 16‐3‐21 . . . has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and use force as provided in said Code sections, including deadly force. OCGA § 40‐6‐49. Following too closely. (a) The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the speed of such vehicles and the traffic upon and the condition of the highway. OCGA § 40‐6‐247. Following fire apparatus or emergency vehicle. The driver of any vehicle other than one on official business shall not follow any fire apparatus traveling in response to a fire alarm or any other emergency vehicle closer than 200 feet and shall not park such vehicle within 500 feet of any fire apparatus stopped in answer to a fire alarm. OCGA § 40‐6‐312. Operating motorcycle on roadway laned for traffic. (b) The operator of a motorcycle shall not overtake and pass in the same lane occupied by the vehicle being overtaken. (c) No person shall operate a motorcycle between lanes of traffic or between adjacent lines or rows of vehicles. OCGA § 40‐6‐315. Headgear and eye‐protective devices for riders. (a) No person shall operate or ride upon a motorcycle unless he or she is wearing protective headgear which complies with standards established by the commissioner of public safety. OCGA § 40‐5‐57. Suspension or revocation of license of habitually negligent or dangerous driver; point system. (a) The State of Georgia considers dangerous and negligent drivers to be a direct and immediate threat to the welfare and safety of the general public, and it is in the best interests of the citizens of Georgia immediately to remove such drivers from the highways of this state. Therefore, the department is authorized to suspend the license of a driver without a preliminary hearing upon a showing by the records of the department or other sufficient evidence that the licensee is a habitually dangerous or negligent driver of a motor vehicle, such fact being established by the point system in subsection (b) of this Code section. (b) For the purpose of identifying habitually dangerous or negligent drivers and habitual or frequent violators of traffic regulations governing the movement of vehicles, the department shall assess points, as provided in subsection (c) of this Code section, for convictions of violations of the provisions of Chapter 6 of this title, of violations of lawful ordinances adopted by local authorities regulating the operation of motor vehicles, and of offenses committed in other states which if committed in this state would be grounds for such assessment. The department is required to suspend the license of a driver, without preliminary hearing, when his driving record identifies him as a habitually dangerous or negligent driver or as a habitual or frequent violator under this subsection. (c) (1) (A) [T]he points to be assessed for each offense shall be as provided in the following schedule:
Aggressive driving ‐ 6 points Reckless driving ‐ 4 points Unlawful passing of a school bus ‐ 6 points Improper passing on a hill or a curve ‐ 4 points Exceeding the speed limit by more than 14 miles per hour but less than 19 miles per hour ‐ 2 points
50
points Exceeding the speed limit by 19 miles per hour or more but less than 24 miles per hour ‐ 3 points
Exceeding the speed limit by 24 miles per hour or more but less than 34 miles per hour ‐ 4 points
Exceeding the speed limit by 34 miles per hour or more ‐ 6 points Disobedience of any traffic‐control device or traffic officer ‐ 3 points Too fast for conditions ‐ 0 points Possessing an open container of an alcoholic beverage while driving ‐ 2 points Failure to adequately secure a load, except fresh farm produce, resulting in loss of such load onto
the roadway which results in an accident ‐ 2 points Violation of child safety restraint requirements, first offense ‐ 1 point Violation of child safety restraint requirements, second or subsequent offense ‐ 2 points Violation of usage of wireless telecommunications device requirements ‐ 1 point Operating a vehicle while text messaging ‐ 1 point All other moving traffic violations which are not speed limit violations ‐ 3 points
(B) The commissioner shall suspend the driver's license of any person who has accumulated a violation point count of 15 or more points in any consecutive 24 month period, as measured from the dates of previous arrests for which convictions were obtained to the date of the most current arrest for which a conviction is obtained. A second or subsequent plea of nolo contendere, within the preceding five years, as measured from the dates of previous arrests for which pleas of nolo contendere were accepted to the date of the most current arrest for which a plea of nolo contendere is accepted, to a charge of committing an offense listed in this subsection shall be considered a conviction for the purposes of this Code section. At the end of the period of suspension, the violation point count shall be reduced to zero points.
OCGA § 40‐13‐58. Failure to appear after giving cash bond as admission of guilt; forfeiture of bond; order to stand trial not precluded. Where a defendant cited for a traffic violation posts a cash bond according to the schedule set up by court order and fails to appear in court at the term of court and on the day set in the original citation and complaint, then and in that event, such failure shall be construed as an admission of guilt and the cash bond may be forfeited without the necessity for the statutory procedure provided for the forfeiture of statutory bail bonds. A judgment of guilty may be entered accordingly, ordering the case disposed of and settled. The proceeds of the cash bond shall be applied and distributed as any fine imposed by said court would be. Nothing in this Code section shall be construed as preventing the judge from ordering the defendant to appear and stand trial. Case Law The following excerpts are from Case Law concerning the legal issues raised in this mock trial case. Only portions of the opinions are provided, and only those portions may be used in the course of the trial. Citations and internal quotation marks are omitted in the excerpts of the cases that follow. The crime of malice murder is committed when a person unlawfully causes the death of another human human being while acting with express or implied malice. In this definition of the crime, the concept of of malice incorporates the intent to kill. Thus, in Georgia, the crime of malice murder is committed when when the evidence shows either an express or, in the alternative, an implied intent to commit an unlawful
51
unlawful homicide. This meaning of malice murder is consistent with the general rule that crimes which which are "defined so as to require that the defendant intentionally cause a forbidden bad result are usually interpreted to cover one who knows that his conduct is substantially certain to cause the result, whether or not he desires the result to occur." Thus, a malice murder can be shown not only by evidence evidence that the defendant acted with the "deliberate intention unlawfully to take the life of another human being which is manifested by external circumstances capable of proof," but also by evidence that that the defendant acted "where no considerable provocation appears and where all the circumstances of circumstances of the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart." In other words, evidence that the the defendant acted with implied malice is, for purposes of demonstrating his guilt of the crime of malice malice murder, no less probative than proof that he acted with a specific intent to kill. Parker v. State, 270 Ga. 256 (1998) As to the question of malice, there is no requirement of premeditation or a preconceived intention to kill; "malice aforethought can be formed instantly." Wynn v. State, 272 Ga. 861 (2000) Malice imports the absence of all elements of justification or excuse and the presence of an actual intent to cause harm. Stiles v. State, 242 Ga. App. 484 (2000) Motive is not an essential element of the crime of malice murder. Although motive may be relevant to the issues of intent and malice, it is not a separate element of the crime which must be proven by the state.
Coates v. State, 255 Ga 183 (1985) While motive is not an essential element in the proof of the crime of murder, the State is entitled to present evidence to establish that there was a motive. Johnson v. State, 260 Ga. 457 (1990) Felony murder involves a nonintentional killing committed in the prosecution of a felony. It is still murder and is subject to the same penalties as "malice murder." The only difference is the absence of intent and malice. Burke v. State, 234 Ga. 512 (1975) Under Georgia law "[a] person . . . commits the offense of murder when, in the commission of a felony, he [or she] causes the death of another human being, irrespective of malice." Malice means the intent to take a life without legal justification or mitigation. Thus, malice, or the intent to kill, is not an element of felony murder." Proof of felony murder does not require proving malice or the intent to kill, but only that the defendant had the requisite criminal intent to commit the underlying felony. Tessmer v. State, 273 Ga. 220 (2000) When a defendant presents evidence that he was justified in using deadly force, the burden is on the State to disprove the defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Andrews v. State, 267 Ga. 473 (1997) Two elements must be present before the use of deadly force is justified under that statute: (1) the danger to either the actor or a third person must be imminent; and (2) the actor must reasonably believe that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or a third person. Coley v. State, 201 Ga. App. 722 (1991)
52
It is fundamentally unfair and a violation of due process of law for a state to permit cross examination of a of a defendant as to [his] silence where the defendant has been informed of his rights under Miranda, or to or to permit [any witness to] comment thereon, since the giving of the Miranda warnings might induce silence by implicitly assuring a defendant that his silence will not be used against him. Chapman v. State, 263 Ga. 393 (1993) A person commits aggravated assault when, among other actions, he assaults another with a deadly weapon which, when used offensively, is likely to result in serious bodily injury. In this case, appellants did not act with criminal negligence. To the contrary, the evidence clearly showed that appellants intentionally fired bullets into a house occupied by three people. Appellants' primary objective was to kill Mills, whom they blamed for the death of Culler's brother, but it was likely that violent harm would also be inflicted against all persons inside the home. When an unintended victim (such as Hunter) is subjected to harm due to an unlawful act intentionally aimed at someone else (such as Mills), the law prevents the actor from taking advantage of his own misdirected wrongful conduct and transfers the original intent from the one against whom it was intended to the one who suffered harm. Accordingly, it is of no import that appellants were unaware that Hunter was in the home. It is obvious that by intentionally firing into the home, appellants were likely to seriously injure all the occupants, not just their primary target, Mills. Such harm was likely regardless of whether a particular occupant (such as Hunter), was aware of the shooting as it occurred. Culler v. State, 277 Ga. 717 (2004). Under the doctrine of transferred intent, when an unintended victim is struck down as a result of an unlawful act actually directed against someone else, the law prevents the actor from taking advantage of his own wrong and transfers the original intent from the one against whom it was directed to the one who actually suffered from it. Happoldt v. State, 267 Ga. 126, 127 (1996).
53
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MILTON COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA
State of Georgia ) ) Criminal Action No. 2012‐MT v. ) ) DANIEL/DANIELLE CAPULET, ) ) Defendant. )
THE CHARGE OF THE COURT [Not to be read in open court]
Pleadings You are considering the case of the State of Georgia versus Daniel/Danielle Capulet. The defendant in this case has been indicted by the grand jury of this county for the offenses of murder, felony murder and aggravated assault. The indictment reads as follows: (Cover allegations of indictment.) This indictment was returned into court on the 7th day of July, 2011.
Issue and Plea of Not Guilty To this indictment, the defendant has entered a plea of not guilty, and this makes the issue which you have been selected, sworn, and empanelled to try.
Indictment and Plea; Not Evidence I caution you that the fact that this accused has been indicted by the grand jury is no evidence of his/her guilt. You should not consider the indictment as evidence or implication of guilt. Neither is the plea of not guilty to be considered as evidence.
Presumption of Innocence; Burden of Proof; Reasonable Doubt This defendant is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. The defendant enters upon the trial of the case with a presumption of innocence in his/her favor. This presumption remains with the defendant until it is overcome by the state with evidence which is sufficient to convince you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the offense charged. No person shall be convicted of any crime unless and until each element of the crime is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof rests upon the state to prove every material allegation of the indictment and every essential element of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no burden of proof upon the defendant whatever, and the burden never shifts to the defendant to prove innocence. When a defense is raised by the evidence, the burden is on the state to negate or disprove it beyond a
54
reasonable doubt. However, the state is not required to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all doubt or to a mathematical certainty. A reasonable doubt means just what it says. It is a doubt of a fair‐minded, impartial juror, honestly seeking the truth. It is a doubt based upon common sense and reason. It does not mean a vague or arbitrary doubt, but is a doubt for which a reason can be given, arising from a consideration of the evidence, a lack of evidence, a conflict in the evidence, or any combination of these. If after giving consideration to all the facts and circumstances of this case, your minds are wavering, unsettled or unsatisfied, then that is a doubt of the law, and you should acquit the defendant; but, if that doubt does not exist in your minds as to the guilt of the accused, then you would be authorized to convict the defendant. If the state fails to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, it would be your duty to acquit the defendant.
Credibility of Witnesses You must determine the credibility or believability of the witnesses. It is for you to determine what witness or witnesses you will believe and which witness or witnesses you will not believe, if there are some you do not believe. In passing upon their credibility, you may consider all the facts and circumstances of the case, the witnesses' manner of testifying, their intelligence, their interest or lack of interest, their means and opportunity for knowing the facts which they testify about, the nature of the facts which they testify about, the probability or improbability of their testimony, and of the occurrences which they testify about. You may also consider their personal credibility insofar as it may legitimately appear from the trial of this case.
Conflicts in Testimony When you consider the evidence in this case, if you find a conflict, you should settle this conflict, if you can, without believing that any witness made a false statement. If you cannot do this, then you should believe that witness or those witnesses you think best entitled to belief. You must determine what testimony you will believe and what testimony you will not believe.
Defendant's Option to Testify The defendant in a criminal case is under no duty to present any evidence tending to prove innocence and is not required to take the stand and testify in the case. If the defendant elects not to testify, no inference hurtful, harmful, or adverse to the defendant shall be drawn by the jury, nor shall such fact be held against the defendant in any way. However, when a defendant does testify in his own behalf, then you have no right to disregard his/her testimony merely because he is accused of crime; that when s/he does so testify s/he at once becomes the same as any other witness, and his/her credibility is to be tested by and subjected to the same tests as are legally applied to any other witness; and in determining the degree of credibility that shall be accorded to his/her testimony, you have a right to take into consideration the fact that s/he is interested in the result of the prosecution, as well as his/her demeanor and conduct upon the witness stand.
Jury; Judges of Law and Facts Members of the jury, it is my duty and responsibility to ascertain the law applicable to this case and to instruct you on that law, by which you are bound. It is your responsibility to ascertain the facts of the case from all the evidence presented. It then becomes your duty and responsibility to apply the law I give you in the charge to the facts as you find them to be.
Definition of Crime This defendant is charged with a crime against the laws of this state. A crime is a violation of a statute of this state in which there is a joint operation of an act, or omission to act, and intention.
55
Intent Intent is an essential element of any crime and must be proved by the state, beyond a reasonable doubt. Intent may be shown in many ways, provided you, the jury, believe that it existed from the proven facts before you. It may be inferred from the proven circumstances or by acts and conduct, or it may be, in your discretion, inferred when it is the natural and necessary consequence of the act. Whether or not you draw such an inference is a matter solely within your discretion. If one intentionally commits an unlawful act, yet the act harmed a victim other than the one intended, it is not a defense that the defendant did not intend to harm the actual person injured. No Presumption of Criminal Intent This defendant will not be presumed to have acted with criminal intent, but you may find such intention, or the absence of it, upon a consideration of words, conduct, demeanor, motive, and other circumstances connected with the act for which the accused is being prosecuted.
Evidence Evidence is the means by which any fact which is put in issue is established or disproved. Evidence includes all the testimony of the witnesses and the exhibits admitted during the trial. It also includes any facts agreed to by counsel. It does not include the indictment or the opening statements and closing arguments by the attorneys.
Direct and Circumstantial Evidence Evidence may be either direct or circumstantial or both. Direct evidence is evidence which points immediately to the question at issue. Evidence may also be used to prove a fact by inference. This is referred to as circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is the proof of facts or circumstances, by direct evidence, from which you may infer other related or connected facts which are reasonable and justified in the light of your experience. To warrant a conviction on circumstantial evidence, the proven facts must not only be consistent with the theory of guilt, but must exclude every other reasonable theory other than the guilt of the accused. The comparative weight of circumstantial evidence and direct evidence, on any given issue, is a question of fact for the jury to decide. Expert Witness Testimony has been given by certain witnesses who, in law, are termed experts. The law permits persons expert in certain areas to give their opinions derived from their knowledge of that area. The weight which is given to the testimony of expert witnesses is a question to be determined by the jury. The testimony of an expert, like that of any other witness, is to be received by you and given only such weight as you think it is properly entitled to receive. You are not required to accept the opinion testimony of any witness, expert or otherwise.
Witness, Impeached by To impeach a witness is to prove the witness is unworthy of belief. A witness may be impeached by:
a. Disproving the facts to which the witness testified; b. Proof of general bad character; c. Proof that the witness has been convicted of a crime involving dishonesty or false statement; or d. Proof of contradictory statements, previously made by the witness, as to matters relevant to the witness's
testimony and to the case. If it is sought to impeach a witness by "b," "c," or "d," above, proof of the general good character of the witness may be shown. The effect of the evidence is to be determined by the jury.
56
If any attempt has been made in this case to impeach any witness by proof of contradictory statements previously made, you must determine from the evidence:
a. First, whether any such statements were made; b. Second, whether they were contradictory to any statements the witness made on the witness stand; and c. Third, whether it was material to the witness's testimony and to the case.
If you find that a witness has been successfully impeached by proof of previous, contradictory statements, you may disregard that testimony, unless it is corroborated by other creditable testimony, and the credit to be given to the balance of the testimony of the witness would be for you to determine. It is for you to determine whether or not a witness has been impeached and to determine the credibility of such witness and the weight the witness's testimony shall receive in the consideration of the case.
Prior Inconsistent Statement; Substantive Evidence Should you find that any witness, prior to the witness's testimony in this case from the witness stand, has made any statement inconsistent with that witness's testimony from the stand in this case, and that such prior inconsistent statement is material to the case and the witness's testimony, then you are authorized to consider that prior statement not only for purposes of impeachment, but also as substantive evidence in the case.
Offenses Charged This defendant is charged with the offenses of murder and felony murder. These offenses are defined as follows:
Malice Murder; Defined A person commits murder when that person unlawfully and with malice aforethought, either express or implied, causes the death of another human being. Express malice is that deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of another human being, which is shown by external circumstances capable of proof. Malice may, but need not, be implied where no considerable provocation appears and where all the circumstances of the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart. It is for the jury to decide whether or not the facts and circumstances of this case show malice. To constitute murder, the homicide must have been committed with malice. Legal malice is not necessarily ill will or hatred, but it is the unlawful intention to kill without justification, excuse, or mitigation. If a killing is done with malice, no matter how short a time the malicious intent may have existed, such killing constitutes murder. Georgia law does not require premeditation, and no particular length of time is required for malice to be generated in the mind of a person. It may be formed in a moment, and instantly a mortal wound may be inflicted. Yet, if malice is in the mind of the accused at the time of the doing of the act or killing, and moves the accused to do it, such is sufficient to constitute the homicide as murder.
Premeditation; Defined Premeditation, as the term is usually used, means a prior determination or plan to commit an act. Premeditation is not an element of the offense of murder, and therefore need not be proven by the state to establish malice aforethought. However, any evidence of premeditation, or lack of it, may be considered by you insofar as it related to the existence, or nonexistence, of malice at the time of the alleged killing.
Felony Murder; Defined A person also commits the crime of murder when, in the commission of a felony, that person causes the death of another human being irrespective of malice. Under our law, aggravated assault is a felony, and is defined as follows: An assault is an attempt to commit a violent injury to the person of another.
57
A person commits the offense of aggravated assault when that person assaults another person with a deadly weapon, or with any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury.
Motive Proof of particular motive is not essential to constitute the crime of murder. Evidence of motive, if any, is admitted for your determination as to whether or not it establishes the state of the defendant's mind at the time of the alleged homicide. Affirmative Defense; Definition; Burden of Proof An affirmative defense is a defense that admits the doing of the act charged, but seeks to justify, excuse, or mitigate it. Once the issue of an affirmative defense is raised, the burden is on the state to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
Justification; Generally If you find that the defendant's conduct was justified, this is a defense to prosecution for any crime based on that conduct.
Use of Force in Defense of Self A person is justified in threatening or using force against another person when, and to the extent that, he/she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to defend himself/herself against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. A person is justified in using force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if that person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself/herself or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. The state has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not justified. A person is not justified in using force, if that person:
a. Initially provokes the use of force against himself/herself with the intent to use such force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the assailant; or
b. Is attempting to commit, committing, or fleeing after the commission or attempted commission of a felony; or
c. Was the aggressor or was engaged in a combat by agreement, unless the person withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates his/her intent to withdraw to the other person, and the other person still continues or threatens to continue the use of unlawful force.
Forcible Felony, Definition A forcible felony means any felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any person. Aggravated assault is a felony, and I have previously defined it for you.
Doctrine of Reasonable Beliefs In applying the law of self‐defense, a defendant is justified to kill another person in defense of self. The standard is whether the circumstances were such that they would excite not merely the fears of the defendant but the fears of a reasonable person. For the killing to be justified under the law, the accused must have really acted under the influence of these fears and not in a spirit of revenge. What the facts are in this case is a matter solely for you, the jury, to determine under all the facts and circumstances of this case.
Retreat (No Duty to Retreat to Be Justified) One who is not the aggressor is not required to retreat before being justified in using such force as is necessary for personal defense, or in using force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm, if one reasonably believes
58
such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself/herself or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
Justification; Threats, Menaces Causing Reasonable Beliefs of Danger It is not essential, to justify a homicide, that there should be an actual assault made upon the defendant. Threats, accompanied by menaces, though the menaces do not amount to an actual assault, may, in some instances, be sufficient to arouse a reasonable belief that one's life is in imminent danger, or that one is in imminent danger of great bodily injury, or that a forcible felony is about to be committed upon one's person. Provocation by threats or words alone will in no case justify the homicide or be sufficient to free the accused from the crime of murder when the killing is done solely in resentment of the provoking words. Whether or not the killing, if there was a killing, was done under circumstances which would be justifiable or was done solely as a result of, and in resentment of, threats or provoking words alone is a matter for you, the jury, to determine. If you believe that the defendant was justified under the instructions which the court has given you, then it would be your duty to acquit the defendant.
Excessive Force The use of excessive force or unlawful force, while acting in self‐defense, is not justifiable, and the defendant's conduct in this case would not be justified if you find that the force used exceeded that which the defendant reasonably believed was necessary to defend against the victim's use of unlawful force, if any.
Revenge for Prior Wrong A person has a right to defend himself/herself, but a person is not justified in deliberately assaulting another person not to prevent any impending wrong, but solely in revenge for a past or previous wrong, regardless of how serious the past or previous wrong might have been, when the episode involving the previous wrong has ended. Such person is not justified in revenge by deliberately seeking out and assaulting the alleged wrongdoer. If you find from the evidence in this case that the defendant used force against the alleged victim named in this indictment in order to prevent an impending wrong which the defendant reasonably believed was about to be committed by such other person, and that the defendant reasonably believed that such force was necessary in order to prevent such impending wrong (death or great bodily injury to the defendant, or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony), then that use of force would be justified, and it would be your duty to acquit the defendant. On the other hand, if you believe beyond a reasonable doubt from the evidence in this case that the defendant used force against the alleged victim named in the indictment (in the way and manner alleged in the indictment) for the sole purpose of avenging a past or previous wrong, regardless of how serious such previous wrong may have been, and not for the purpose of preventing an impending wrong (death or great bodily injury to the defendant, or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony), then you would be authorized to convict the defendant.
Verdict If you find and believe beyond a reasonable doubt, under all the evidence and the court's instructions, that the defendant is guilty of the offense of murder with malice aforethought, then you must specify such in your verdict, and the form of your verdict in that event would be: "We, the jury, find the defendant guilty of malice murder." If you find and believe beyond a reasonable doubt, under all the evidence and the court's instructions, that the defendant is guilty of the offense of felony murder, then you must specify such in your verdict, and the form of your verdict in that event would be: "We, the jury, find the defendant guilty of felony murder." If you find and believe beyond a reasonable doubt, under all the evidence and the court's instructions, that the
59
defendant is guilty of the offense of aggravated assault, then you must specify such in your verdict, and the form of your verdict in that event would be: "We, the jury, find the defendant guilty of aggravated assault." Not Guilty Verdict Form If you do not believe that the defendant is guilty of any of these offenses, or if you have any reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt, then it would be your duty to acquit the defendant, in which event the form of your verdict would be: "We, the jury, find the defendant not guilty."
Responsibility for Sentencing You are only concerned with the guilt or innocence of the defendant. You are not to concern yourselves with punishment.
Unanimous Verdict Whatever your verdict is, it must be unanimous, that is, agreed by all. The verdict must be signed by one of your members as foreperson, dated, and returned to be published in open court.
Deliberations One of your first duties in the jury room will be to select one of your number to act as foreperson, who will preside over your deliberations and who will sign the verdict to which all twelve of you freely and voluntarily agree. You should start your deliberations with an open mind. Consult with one another and consider each other's views. Each of you must decide this case for yourself, but you should do so only after a discussion and consideration of the case with your fellow jurors. Do not hesitate to change an opinion if convinced that it is wrong. However, you should never surrender an honest opinion in order to be congenial or to reach a verdict solely because of the opinions of the other jurors.
Court Has No Interest in Case By no ruling or comment which the court has made during the progress of the trial has the court intended to express any opinion upon the facts of this case, upon the credibility of the witnesses, upon the evidence, or upon the guilt or innocence of the defendant.
Retire to Jury Room You may now retire to the jury room, but do not begin your deliberations until you receive the indictment and any evidence which has been admitted in the case.
Bailiff, escort the jury to the jury room.
60
2012 RULES OF THE
GEORGIA HIGH SCHOOL MOCK TRIAL COMPETITION
These rules are in effect 1 November 2011 through 31 October 2012. Yellow highlighted areas indicate changes made for the 2011 season.
I. Rules of the Organization A. The Problem
1. Rules (Rule 1) 2. Problem (Rule 2) 3. Witness Bound by Statements (Rule 3) 4. Unfair Extrapolation (Rule 4) 5. Witnesses (Rule 5) 6. Voir Dire (Rule 6)
B. The Trial 1. Mock Trial Team (Rule 7) 2. Instruction and Use (Rule 8) 3. Activities Permitted During the School
Day (Rule 9) 4. Resolution of Section B Rules
Violations (Rule 10) 5. Team Presentation (Rule 11) 6. Team Duties (Rule 12) 7. Swearing of Witnesses (Rule 13) 8. Trial Sequence and Time Limits (Rule
14) 9. Timekeeping (Rule 15) 10. Time Extensions (Rule 16) 11. Prohibited and Permitted Motions
(Rule 17) 12. Sequestration (Rule 18) 13. Bench Conferences (Rule 19) 14. Supplemental Material/Illustrative
Aids (Rule 20) 15. Trial Communication (Rule 21) 16. Viewing a Trial (Rule 22) 17. Videotaping/Photography (Rule 23)
C. Judging 1. Decisions (Rule 24) 2. Composition of Panel (Rule 25) 3. Scoresheets/Ballots (Rule 26) 4. Completion of Scoresheets/Judging
Guidelines (Rule 27) 5. Team Advancement (Rule 28) 6. Power Matching/Seeding (Rule 29) 7. Effect of Bye/Default (Rule 31)
D.Dispute Settlement 1. Reporting a Rules Violation/ Inside the Bar (Rule 32) 2. Dispute Resolution Procedure (Rule
33) 3. Effect of Violation on Score (Rule
34) 4. Reporting a Rules
Violation/Outside the Bar (Rule 35) II. Rules of Procedure A. Before the Trial 1. Team Roster (Rule 36) 2. Stipulations (Rule 37) 3. The Record (Rule 38) B. Beginning the Trial 1. Jury Trial (Rule 39) 2. Standing During Trial (Rule 40) 3. Student Work Product (Rule 41) C. Presenting Evidence 1. Argumentative/Ambiguous
Questions and Non‐Responsive Answers (Rule 42)
2. Assuming Facts Not in Evidence (Rule 43)
3. Lack of Proper Predicate/ Foundation (Rule 44) 4. Procedure of Introduction of
Exhibits (Rule 45) 5. Use of Notes (Rule 46) 6. Redirect/Recross (Rule 47) D. Opening Statement/Closing Argument 1. Special Mock Trial Objections (Rule
48) E. Critique 1. The Critique (Rule 49)
III. The Georgia High School Mock Trial Competition Rules of Evidence
61
I. RULES OF THE ORGANIZATION
A. THE PROBLEM Rule 1. Rules (a) The Georgia Mock Trial Competition, and all of the
Special Projects sponsored by the Georgia High School Mock Trial Committee, including, but not limited to, the Law Academy and the Court Artist Competition, are governed by the Rules of the Organization, the Rules of Procedure, and the Georgia High School Mock Trial Rules of Evidence. Specifically, the Code of Ethical Conduct identified in Rule 7(k), and the disciplinary processes outlined in Rule 10 are applicable to the Competition and to the Special Projects noted above. Any clarification of rules or case materials will be issued in writing to all participating teams and/or students.
(b) These Rules govern rounds in regions and at the State Finals. When a team registers to compete in this program, that team agrees to comply with the rules, the policies and the Code of Ethical Conduct of the Georgia High School Mock Trial Competition. The Rules Subcommittee has the authority to remove a team or individual team members or coaches from the Georgia High School Mock Trial Competition for non‐compliance with these rules, with competition policy and/or the Code of Ethical Conduct.
(c) Any modification to the rules of a competition made on‐site must be reduced to writing and signed by the trial coordinator and the teacher or attorney coaches of the affected teams.
(d) Individual scoring judges have within their discretion the ability to discount points for violations of these rules.
(e) A mock trial “region” must consist of at least five teams. In the event that a region drops to four teams the regional competition will proceed under “emergency circumstances” and the scoring will be conducted as outlined in Rule 29(b)(7). If the number of teams assigned to a region drops to three or fewer within 14 days of the first scheduled competition date, volunteer teams will be solicited to move into the affected region to bring the number of teams up to at least four. A team invited under these circumstances to volunteer to move into the affected region will be under no obligation to accept the invitation and will suffer no penalty for declining, but will be eligible to have their team registration fee waived for the next season in acknowledgment of their assistance. If a volunteer team is not identified to salvage the affected region within 5 days of beginning the search, that region will be dissolved for that season and the remaining teams will be reassigned to another region, on a space available basis. If the mock trial office is unable to reassign a team affected by the dissolution of a region for any reason, that team may be eligible for a 70% refund of their team registration fee. Team reassignment under these circumstances may not be contested by any party.
(f) The Subcommittee on the Rules reserves the right to move teams from assigned regions to other neighboring regions in order to maintain an equitable balance in the size of neighboring regions, or for any
other administrative purpose deemed by the Subcommittee to be in the best interests of the program; provided, however, that team reassignments necessitated by a region dropping below four teams within 14 days of the first scheduled competition date will be handled solely as provided by Rule 1(e). Any team whose assignment has been shifted from one region to another during the season, with the exception of those affected by the dissolution of a regional competition under Rule 1(e), has a right to appeal such a decision before the Rules Subcommittee Chair within 24 hours of receiving notification of the reassignment, but the subsequent ruling of the Subcommittee Chair is final. Other teams in a region affected by such shifts in the assignment of a team into or out of said region do not have a right to appeal administrative decisions made by the Subcommittee Chair.
(g) Teams must participate in at least two preliminary and one final/championship round at the regional level of competition and win the title of “Regional Champion” or be randomly selected for a “wildcard” berth in order to proceed to the State Finals level of competition.
(h) If, for any reason, a round or rounds of a regional competition is postponed or cancelled, with the exception of the cancellation of competition rounds in a region that has been dissolved for the season under Rule 1(e), it is the responsibility of the regional coordinator to announce the date of the rescheduled round or rounds within seven days of the original regional competition date and to fully staff any rescheduled rounds in compliance with these rules. No regional competition rounds may be held within the 14 days before the first round of the state tournament.
(i) If, for any reason, a regional champion team withdraws from the GHSMT Competition after winning the title of “Regional Champion”, that team will forfeit the title and its place at the State Finals tournament. The title will then be conferred on the regional finalist team and the regional finalist team, as the new Regional Champion, will advance to State.
Rule 2. The Problem The problem will be an original fact pattern which may contain any or all of the following: statement of facts, indictment, stipulations, witness statements/affidavits, jury charges, exhibits, etc. Stipulations may not be disputed at trial. Witness statements may not be altered. Only three witnesses per side will be called. Rule 3. Witness Bound by Statements
(a) Each witness is bound by the facts contained in his/her own witness statement and/or any exhibits relevant to his/her testimony. Fair extrapolations may be allowed, provided reasonable inference may be made from the witness’ statement. If, in direct examination, an attorney asks a question which calls for extrapolated information pivotal to the facts at issue, the information is subject to
62
objection under Rule 4, outside the scope of the problem.
(b) If, in cross‐examination, an attorney asks for unknown information, the witness may or may not respond, so long as any response is consistent with the witness’ statement or affidavit and does not materially affect the witness’ testimony.
(c) Students shall be prohibited from responding with new material facts which are not in their witness statements or consistent with the Statement of Facts.
(d) A witness is not bound by facts contained in other witness statements.
(e) The Case Summary (or Statement of Facts), if provided, is meant to serve as background information only. It may not be used for substantive evidence, cross‐examination, or impeachment.
Rule 4. Unfair Extrapolation (Additional explanations regarding this rule may be found in the Coaches Manual)
(a) Unfair extrapolations are best attacked through impeachment and closing arguments and are to be dealt with in the course of the trial. A fair extrapolation is one that is neutral.
(b) Attorneys shall not ask questions calling for information outside the scope of the case materials or requesting an unfair extrapolation. If a witness is asked information not contained in the witness’ statement, the answer must be consistent with the statement and may not materially affect the witness’ testimony or any substantive issue of the case.
(c) Attorneys for the opposing team may refer to Rule 4 in a special objection, such as “unfair extrapolation” or “This information is beyond the scope of the statement of facts.”
(d) Possible rulings by a judge include: 1. No extrapolation has occurred; 2. An unfair extrapolation has occurred; or 3. The extrapolation was fair.
(e) The decision of the presiding judge regarding extrapolations or evidentiary matters is final.
(f) When an attorney objects to an extrapolation, the judge will rule in open court to clarify the course of further proceedings.
(g) Points should be deducted from individual scores of participants who make unfair extrapolations or ask questions that call for unfair extrapolations. Witnesses and attorneys making unfair extrapolations and attorneys who ask questions that require the witness to answer with an unfair extrapolation should be penalized by having a point or points deducted from their individual scores.
(h) The number of points deducted should be determined by the severity of the extrapolation. If a team has several team members making unfair extrapolations, the offending team’s overall points should also be reduced accordingly.
(See Rule 27 for the treatment of rule infractions.)
Rule 5. Witnesses Any student may play any witness role, regardless of the student’s race, religion, ethnicity, sex, physical attributes, or disability. Where a witness is specifically described as being of a particular sex, religion, or race or as having a particular physical attribute, injury, or disability, any student of any sex, religion, race, physical attribute, or disability may play that role. At no time will an examining attorney or witness make an issue of the student’s actual race, religion, ethnicity, sex, physical attributes, or disability at trial, but both will be confined to the case’s description of the witness role being portrayed. The gender of students will be clearly indicated on the Trial Squad Roster form. Rule 6. Voir Dire Voir dire examination of a witness is not permitted. B. THE TRIAL
Rule 7. Mock Trial Team (a) Team Composition and Eligibility—A team shall be
composed of young people who are between the ages of 14 and 19 and who are currently enrolled or receiving educational instruction at the high school level; at least one attorney coach; and at least one teacher coach. Prior approval from the state office must be obtained at the time of registration for a teacher to coach a team at a school or facility other than the one where the teacher coach is currently employed. No approval of this nature will be given if such approval is in violation of school or school system policy. All student participants must attend/be registered at the school or organization that registers the team. No requests will be granted for students to participate on a mock trial team not affiliated with the school or organization where s/he is officially registered as a student. No non‐school organization (i.e. a Boy/Girl Scout troop, Boys/Girls Club, etc.) wishing to participate in this program. may allow students who attend and/or are registered at a school that has a team active in the competition to participate on that organization’s team.
(b) Attorney Coaches—A team is to be registered and sponsored by an attorney in good standing with the State Bar of Georgia. The primary attorney coach may register additional attorneys as assisting coaches all of whom must be in good standing with the State Bar of Georgia. No person may serve as an attorney coach who is currently under sanction by the Supreme Court of Georgia for disciplinary reasons. Law clerks, paralegals, law students and attorneys admitted in another state, who are in good standing with their State Bar Association may assist the coaching staff but must operate under the professional supervision of a fully licensed attorney coach. As the sponsor of the team, the attorney coach will act as liaison between the team and the local and state bar associations and will submit the registration form and fee. The coaching staff will act as legal advisers in preparing the team for competition. No attorney coach may coach more than one team
63
(c) Teacher Coaches—The teacher coach will act as the educational adviser to the team, serving as guide to both the team members and their attorney coaches, so that all decisions related to the program are made in the best interests of the education of the team members. The final authority over the direction of a mock trial team rests with the teacher coach. No teacher coach may coach more than one team
(d) Number of Teams per School—Only one team per school, facility or organization may compete in the regional, State Finals or national competitions. Although there is no limit on the number of members a team may have, a maximum of fourteen members per team may compete during any level (regional or State Finals) of the state competition.
(e) Official/Competing and Non‐Competing/Additional Team Members—These fourteen team members are designated as “official/competing” team members; all other student participants are designated “non‐competing/additional” team members. All official/competing and non‐competing/additional team members must sign the Code of Ethical Conduct form (see Rule 7(k)). On their Code of Ethical Conduct form, teams must identify their official/competing team members by designating each of them as a member of one of two trial squads —"P", for Prosecution/Plaintiff; or "D", for Defense. Each trial squad, P or D, will have a maximum of seven competing team members each (3 serving in attorney roles, 3 serving in witness roles and 1 serving as a timekeeper—see Rule 12). The Code of Ethical Conduct form must be submitted to the on‐site trial coordinator before the first competition round at any level of the competition in order to be eligible to compete. At each competition round, roles and responsibilities of official/competing team members within each trial squad must be identified and listed on the Trial Squad Roster Form (see Rule 36). From one round to the next, roles and responsibilities of the official/competing team members may be interchanged within each designated trial squad, but not between trial squads. However, no substitutions by a non‐competing/additional team member for an official/competing team member may be made during the entirety of a competition level, unless there is an emergency that arises during competition. A non‐competing/additional team member may not serve as an assistant timekeeper during any round. Non‐compliance with this portion of Rule 7, at any level or round of the state competition, may result in penalties being applied by the trial coordinator under Rule 33(b) and (c).
(f) Substitution During a Round—If an emergency arises during the competition and a team must substitute a non‐competing/additional team member for an official/competing team member, permission must be obtained from the on‐site trial coordinator and that permission, if given, will extend only to the end of the last round during that competition level. In the case of an emergency affecting team composition before the day of the competition, contact the state mock trial office.
(g) Unable to Field a Full Competition Team—A team, unable to field a full team of 14 members, may compete with as few as nine members. In that case, six team members should be assigned attorney duties, three for
each side. The remaining three team members will serve as witnesses, beginning in the courtroom with the Plaintiff/Prosecution, then transferring to the Defendant/Defense’s courtroom to play those roles.
(h) Submitting to Time Kept by Opposing Team—If the team is unable to provide a timekeeper, it must submit to the times called by the opposing team’s timekeeper. If neither team in a round is able to provide a timekeeper, one coach from each team will be designated as the official timekeeper from that team for that round.
(i) Team Names—The team name may reflect the city, county, community, neighborhood, or geographic area where most of its members reside. The team name may be chosen to honor an individual. All team names should be chosen so that the phrase, “[insert name] Mock Trial Team,” symbolizes both the team and the dignity of the legal profession. Team names are subject to the approval of the state mock trial office. Team names will be registered in the order of the receipt of a completed registration form and fee by the state office. A team name may not include the following terms: “school,” “high,” “academy,” “institute,” “campus,” or “center.”
(j) Required Eligibility Forms—In order to verify eligibility, coaches must submit required forms by the published deadlines. All coaches (teachers and attorneys) must be reported to the state office on the registration form or the supplementary Team Coach Form. Names of team members with birthdates must be reported to the state office on the Team Member Form. These forms are provided in the Coaches’ Manual and are due in the state office no later than 30 January. The state office may disqualify a team from competition for failure to meet this deadline. Changes in team composition following the published deadline must be cleared with the state office no later than 5 business days before the team’s scheduled competition date. Team member changes will not be permitted at the competition site.
(k) Ethics—The Code of Ethical Conduct governs all participants, observers, guests, and parents at Georgia Mock Trial Competition events, including, but not limited to, the Competition itself, the Law Academy and the Court Artist Competition. A copy of the code must be signed by all students and participating coaches prior to any of the events outlined above and must be delivered at registration to the coordinator of the event. Participants are responsible for making guests and parents aware of the code and all rules regarding conduct during the event.
(l) Decorum—Counsel should treat opposing counsel with courtesy and tact. Attorneys should conduct themselves as professionals in these proceedings. Therefore, opposing counsel, witnesses, and the presiding judge must be treated with the appropriate courtesy and respect. All participants, including coaches, presiding judges and attorneys on the judging panel, are expected to display proper courtroom decorum. A trial coordinator has the authority to refuse entry to or remove a coach and/or other spectator from a courtroom before or during a trial round (or rounds) if the trial coordinator feels that the actions of the coach and/or spectator in the
64
courtroom is causing or may cause an undue distraction to the teams competing in that courtroom. The Plaintiff/Prosecution team shall be seated closest to the jury box. No team shall rearrange the courtroom without prior permission of the judge. (See Rule 27 for the treatment of rule infractions.) Appropriate courtroom attire is expected. Small children and food should not be brought into the courtroom.
Rule 8. Instruction and Use
(a) The Problem shall not be used as a basis for any course of study, at any instructional level, during the competition year for which the Problem is created until such time as the Final Round of the State Competition has been completed and scored.
(b) This Rule shall apply to elementary, middle school, high school, college, graduate and post‐graduate programs, private and public, whether or not individuals who would direct or otherwise be involved in the study or analysis of the Problem support a mock trial team, Plaintiff/Prosecution and Defense squads, or smaller groups of individual members of any mock trial team.
(c) The prohibition on Working the Current Competition Case includes, but is not limited to discussion and/or development of the Case Facts, Witness Statements or Exhibits, Rules of Procedure, Rules of Evidence, and/or litigation strategies.
(d) Any use of the Problem in the competition year for which it was created as outlined above shall be interpreted as a violation of the Young Lawyers Division, State Bar of Georgia copyright of said materials, whether or not used for a non‐profit or educational purpose. Further, any such use of the Problem in the manner outlined above by any individual involved in any way with the coaching or support of a mock trial team, Plaintiff/Prosecution and Defense squads, or smaller groups of individual members of a mock trial team shall be deemed a violation of the Procedural and Ethical Rules of Competition, regardless of whether any information shared in the course of study is shared with a competition team or members thereof.
Rule 9. Activities Permitted During the School Day (Additional explanations regarding this rule may be found in the Coaches Manual)
(a) Teams compete in the Georgia Mock Trial Competition
as an extracurricular activity and, therefore, must adhere to the State Standards of the Georgia Department of Education requiring that individual and group practice be conducted outside the school day. (See the Coaches Manual for further information on the State Standards and examples of proper and improper activities under this rule.)
(b) Definition of “Working on the Current Competition Case” — Working on the current competition case is the organized studying, discussion or preparation of the case materials, including but not limited to discussion of the:
1. case facts, witness statements or exhibits, 2. rules of procedure, 3. rules of evidence; and
4. litigation strategies. (c) No organized group practice or meeting of a mock
trial team, Plaintiff/Prosecution and Defense squads, or smaller groups of individual members may be held during regular school hours for the purpose of working with the current competition case. Any meeting of a mock trial team organized by a coach for the purpose of working on the current competition case during regular school hours, including associated travel for such a meeting, is interpreted as a violation of this rule.
(d) Nothing about this Rule should be construed to discourage teams from observing real life court proceedings. Individuals and teams are clearly permitted to observe such proceedings outside of school hours, including during school holidays. Individual team members may observe court proceedings during school hours with the permission of their parents and their school provided that they:
1. observe the proceedings as part of a school‐sponsored field trip and students who are non‐team members are present; or
2. observe the proceedings independently and no other team members (including teacher coaches) are present; or
3. observe the proceedings independently as part of a group of students that includes non‐team members.
(e) If such court attendance cannot be made outside of school hours or during school hours as part of any trip specifically permitted above, a team may apply to its Regional Coordinator for an Exception allowing said team or its members to watch court proceedings during school hours on a single date. The application shall:
1. Be in writing; 2. Conform to the State Standards of the
Georgia Department of Education; 3. Explain why such team cannot attend real
life court proceedings outside of school hours;
4. Specify the court proceeding to be attended;
5. Specify the day court shall be attended; and
6. Specify the hours, not to exceed 3 hours per Exception, to be spent in court.
(f) Regional Coordinators may grant up to three (3) Exceptions (totaling nine (9) hours attending court proceedings) per team during the regular season and up to two (2) Exceptions (totaling six (6) hours attending court proceedings) per team for teams advancing to the State Finals. Regional Coordinators shall reply to all applications in writing. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHALL AN EXCEPTION BE GRANTED FOR A TEAM TO PRACTICE OR TO WORK ON THE CURRENT CASE AT ANY LOCATION, INCLUDING AT A COURTHOUSE, DURING SCHOOL HOURS. Exceptions are intended solely for the purpose of allowing students the opportunity to watch real life court proceedings. All applications and responses will be forwarded promptly to the State Mock Trial Coordinator. Any
65
abuse of this procedure shall subject the team to the disciplinary procedures outlined in Section IV of the Grievance Procedure.
Rule 10. Resolution of Section B Rules Violations
(a) The State Bar of Georgia recognizes that the High School Mock Trial Competition is a competition involving student and teacher volunteers who are not professional attorneys. These extracurricular teams choose to participate in this competition and abide its Rules. No action taken by the High School Mock Trial Committee in enforcement of these Rules shall be construed beyond the purview of this competition. In that spirit, students and teams are encouraged to resolve all disputes without resorting to formal grievances. The following procedure applies only to violations of Rules that concern team eligibility and conduct and other "outside the bar" aspects of the competition on non‐competition days. All violations of rules, both inside and outside the bar, that occur on competition days are governed by section D of the Rules.
(b) A grievance alleging a violation of the Rules must be given to the Regional Coordinator of the affected region or the State Coordinator as soon as possible. If given to the Regional Coordinator, the Regional Coordinator shall promptly forward the grievance to the State Coordinator. All grievances must be submitted in writing, specifically detailing the alleged violation and any attempts to resolve the dispute informally prior to the filing of a formal grievance. Should the complaint originate with any person charged with deciding the disposition of such complaint, or consenting thereto, the person originating the complaint shall recuse himself/herself from the disposition process. Any member of the Panel, Grievance Committee, or Governing Board described below may participate in the disposition process by teleconference.
(c) Upon receipt of a complaint, the State Coordinator shall consult with the Chair of the Subcommittee on the Rules, the Special Consultant to the High School Mock Trial Committee, and the Chair of the High School Mock Trial Committee (the “Panel”) for an initial evaluation of the complaint. This evaluation shall be convened and conducted as soon as practicable. 1. If the Panel determines that the incident
complained of could be interpreted as a violation of the Rules, the party or team alleged to have committed the violation shall be notified of the complaint and offered an opportunity to respond in writing. Such response must be made within 12 hours of notification.
2. The grievance and response shall be forwarded to all members of the Panel. No other evidence or testimony shall be allowed except as ordered by majority vote of the Panel.
3. The Panel, with the advice and consent of the State Coordinator, shall determine by majority vote whether a violation of the Rules has occurred. If a violation is found, the Panel may impose discipline as provided in Rule 10(h).
(d) The party agrieved by the decision of the Panel may appeal to the Governing Board.
(e) The Governing Board shall consist of the following members: 1. The Chair of the High School Mock Trial
Committee 2. The 1st Vice Chair of the High School Mock
Trial Committee 3. The 2nd Vice Chair of the High School Mock
Trial Committee 4. The Special Consultant to the High School
Mock Trial Committee; 5. The Immediate Past Chair of the High School
Mock Trial Committee 6. The Chair of the Subcommittee on the Rules; 7. The Chair of the Subcommittee on the
Problem; 8. The Regional Coordinator for the affected
region; 9. The President of the Young Lawyers Division; 10. The President‐Elect of the Young Lawyers
Division; and 11. The Secretary of the Young Lawyers Division. If any chair is unavailable, his or her vice‐chair may serve.
(f) All appeals must be registered in writing with the State Coordinator within 24 hours of the Panel’s decision.
(g) After an appeal is registered, the Governing Board shall convene as soon as practicable. A quorum of the Governing Board (7 of 11) is required for any decision. The decision shall be rendered by majority vote, and all parties shall be notified of the decision. All decisions of the Governing Board shall be final.
(h) Should a majority of the Governing Board’s voting members be unable to reach a decision on the appeal, the decision of the Panel shall stand as a summarily affirmed
(i) Should discipline be imposed, either by the panel or the Governing Board, the following range of actions shall be considered, weighing the severity of the infraction against the goal of allowing students to compete: 1. Warning: The lowest level of discipline, this
will constitute a letter to the affected parties advising them of the Rules violation and of potential consequences of continued violations.
2. Reprimand: A reprimand to be published in Mock Trial Briefs, advising all participants in the Mock Trial Program that a team or its member has committed a Rules violation and of the potential consequences of continued violations.
3. Point Deduction: For infractions not rising to a level requiring disqualification of a team member or entire team, point deductions ranging from 1 to 10 points can be imposed against a team member or entire team in a single round, in an entire regional competition, in an entire competition year, or for succeeding years, depending upon the severity of the violation.
66
4. Member Disqualification: For severe infractions by individual team members, those team members shall be disqualified from competition for a given year or succeeding years, depending upon the severity of the infraction. This punishment may also be used against team members with repeated lesser violations, with whom reprimands and point deductions have not been effective.
5. Team Disqualification: For severe infractions by an entire team, that team shall be disqualified from competition for a given year or succeeding years, depending upon the severity of the infraction. This punishment may also be used against teams with repeated lesser violations, with which reprimands and point deductions have not been effective.
Rule 11. Team Presentation (a) Teams must be prepared to present both the
Prosecution/Plaintiff and Defense/Defendant sides of the case simultaneously. Any team who arrives at a competition site, at any level of the competition, with only one side (P or D, but not both) available to compete, will be immediately withdrawn from the competition and not allowed to compete in any round.
(b) In the case of an emergency occurring during a round of competition, a team may participate with less than nine members. In such a case, a team may continue in the competition by making substitutions to achieve a two‐attorney/three witness composition. Any team competing under this emergency arrangement is ineligible to advance to the championship round.
(c) Final determination of emergency forfeiture will be made by the trial coordinator, in consultation with available Committee leaders. Under extraordinary circumstances, the trial coordinator, in consultation with available Committee leaders, may declare an emergency prior to the competition round.
(d) A forfeiting team will receive a loss and points totaling the average number of the ballots and the points received by the losing teams in that round. The non‐forfeiting team will receive a win and an average number of ballots and points received by the winning teams in that round.
Rule 12. Team Duties
(a) Official competing team members must handle all aspects of the trial during a competition round, including any rules disputes at the conclusion of the trial round.
(b) Team members are to divide their duties evenly. Each of the three attorneys will conduct one direct and one cross; in addition, one will present the opening statements and another will present closing arguments. In other words, the eight attorney duties for each team will be divided as follows: 1. Opening Statement 2. Direct Examination of Witness #1 3. Direct Examination of Witness #2 4. Direct Examination of Witness #3
5. Cross Examination of Witness #1 6. Cross Examination of Witness #2 7. Cross Examination of Witness #3 8. Closing Argument (including Rebuttal) [See
Rule 14.] Every attorney must conduct a direct and cross examination.
(c) Opening Statements must be given by both sides at the beginning of the trial. The Prosecution/Plaintiff gives the closing argument first but may reserve all or a portion of its closing time for a rebuttal.
(d) The attorney who will examine a particular witness on direct examination is the only person who may make the objections to the opposing attorney’s questions of that witness’ cross examination, and the attorney who will cross examine a witness will be the only one permitted to make objections during the direct examination of that witness.
(e) The attorneys who make the opening statement or the closing argument during a trial round are the only people who may make an “objection” to an opponent’s opening statement or closing argument, as outlined in Rule 48a.
(f) Each team must call three witnesses. Witnesses must be called only by their own team and examined by both sides. A team may not treat its own witness as a hostile witness, unless expressly authorized within the case materials. Witnesses may not be recalled by either side. Witnesses may be called in any order, regardless of the order in which they are listed on the Trial Squad Roster Form or in which they have been called in earlier rounds of the competition.
Rule 13. Swearing of Witnesses (a) The following oath may be used before questioning
begins: “Do you promise that the testimony you are about to give will faithfully and truthfully conform to the facts and rules of the mock trial competition?”
(b) The swearing of witnesses will be conducted by the examining attorney prior to questioning or by the presiding judge at the start of the trial. No religious texts or references to a deity may be used.
Rule 14. Trial Sequence and Time Limits
(a) The trial sequence and time limits are as follows: 1. Opening Statement (5 minutes per side) 2. Direct and Redirect (optional) Examination
(25 minutes per side) 3. Cross and Recross (optional) Examination (20
minutes per side) 4. Closing Argument (5 minutes per side)
(b) Redirect and Recross examinations must conform to restrictions in Rule 611(d). The Prosecution/Plaintiff’s rebuttal is not limited to the scope of the Defense’s closing argument.
(c) Attorneys are not required to use the entire time allotted to each part of the trial. Time remaining in one part of the trial will not be transferred to another part of the trial.
67
(d) Even if a team has exhausted its time for direct and/or cross examination, Rule 12(e) requires that each witness be called and subjected to direct and cross examination. Accordingly, attorneys out of time will be allowed only one question in direct: “Will the witness please state your name for the record?” The opposing team will be permitted to conduct a cross examination of the witness. No questions will be allowed on cross examination if a team has used all of its allotted time for cross examination.
(See Rule 27 for the treatment of rule infractions.) Rule 15. Timekeeping (Additional explanations regarding this rule may be found in the Team and Coach Manuals.)
(a) Time limits are mandatory and will be enforced. (b) Time for objections, extensive questioning from the
judge, or administering the oath will not be counted as part of the allotted time during examination of witnesses and opening and closing statements.
(c) Time does not stop for introduction of evidence. (d) Each team will provide one timekeeper for each
round for each squad (Prosecution/Plaintiff and Defense/Defendant). A copy of the Time Sheet is provided in the Coaches Manual. Time card templates are provided in the Coaches Manual. Time cards must be printed on yellow paper. When the time allowed for a category has expired, the timekeeper will raise the STOP card so that it may be visible to the judge and both counsels. If the STOP card is raised and the attorney continues without permission from the judge to do so, attorneys for the opposing team may use a special objection, such as “time has expired,” to bring the matter to the judge’s attention.
(e) At the end of each task during the trial presentation (i.e. at the end of each opening, at the end each witness examination, at the end of each cross examination and at the end of each closing argument) if there is more than a 15 second discrepancy between the teams’ timekeepers, the timekeepers must notify the presiding judge of the discrepancy. The presiding judge will then rule on the discrepancy, the timekeepers will synchronize their stopwatches accordingly and the trial will continue. No time disputes will be entertained after the trial concludes.
(f) At the conclusion of the round, the presiding judge will ask the timekeepers to present their forms. It is the sole discretion of the scoring judges as to how they will interpret and weigh violations of time limits, and their decisions will be final.
Rule 16. Time Extensions and Scoring The presiding judge has sole discretion to grant time extensions. If time has expired the attorney may not continue without permission from the Court. Judges are encouraged to allow the completion of an answer which is in progress at the moment time is called. If an attorney pleads for additional examination after time is called, judges may permit a time extension but are strongly encouraged to limit any time extension to one question only. Rule 17. Prohibited and Permitted Motions
(a) No pre‐trial motions may be made. A motion for directed verdict, acquittal, or dismissal of the case at the end of the Plaintiff/Prosecution’s case may not be used. No motions may be made unless expressly provided for in the problem.
(b) A motion for a recess may be used only in the event of an emergency (e.g., health emergency). To the greatest extent possible, team members are to remain in place. Should a recess be called, teams are not to communicate with any observers, coaches, or instructors regarding the trial.
(c) In the event that a team member attorney believes, during the course of a trial round in which that team member attorney is competing, that the presiding judge has materially departed from the rules of the mock trial competition, the team member attorney may move for compliance with the rules of the mock trial competition. Such motions must be presented respectfully, must direct the presiding judge’s attention to the applicable rule, and must be raised at the time of the presiding judge’s alleged departure from the rules. No claim that the presiding judge has departed from the rules of the mock trial competition may be made after the judging panel has returned to the courtroom for debriefing.
Rule 18. Sequestration Teams may not invoke the rule of sequestration. Rule 19. Bench Conferences Bench conferences may be granted at the discretion of the presiding judge, but should be made from the counsel table in the educational interest of handling all matters in open court. Rule 20. Supplemental Material/Illustrative Aids (Additional explanations regarding this rule may be found in the Coaches’ Manual)
(a) Teams may refer only to materials included in the trial packet. No illustrative aids of any kind may be used, unless provided in the case packet. No enlargements or alterations of the case materials will be permitted. If any team member has a disability and requires special assistance, services, or printed materials in alternative formats, in order to participate in the Georgia Mock Trial Competition, the teacher or attorney coach must contact the State Mock Trial Coordinator well in advance of the regional competition date to receive modified case materials or make arrangements for special assistance or services.
(b) Absolutely no props, uniforms, or costumes are permitted, unless specifically authorized in the trial materials. Costuming is defined as hairstyles, clothing, accessories, and makeup, which are case specific.
(c) The only documents which the teams may present to the presiding judge or scoring panel are the individual exhibits as they are introduced into evidence and the team roster forms. Teams shall not show any copies of any exhibit to the scoring
68
panel other than the single individual copy of any exhibit that has been admitted into evidence. Exhibit notebooks are not to be provided to the presiding judge or scoring panel.
(See Rule 27 for the treatment of rule infractions.) Rule 21. Trial Communication
(a) Instructors, alternates, and observers shall not talk to, signal, communicate with, or coach their teams during a trial. No coach is allowed inside the bar at any time during a trial. This rule remains in force during any recess time which may occur.
(b) For purposes of this rule, the trial ends after all closing arguments in that round, including rebuttals, have concluded and the judge has asked the evaluators to retire to calculate their scores.
(c) Official/Competing team members may, among themselves, communicate during the trial; however, no disruptive communication is allowed. Signaling of time by the teams’ timekeepers shall not be considered a violation of this rule.
(d) Non‐competing/additional team members, contest participants, teachers, and coaches must remain outside the bar in the spectator section of the courtroom. Only official/competing team members participating in the round may sit inside the bar and communicate with each other.
(e) Except in the case of an emergency, no official/competing team member is allowed to leave a courtroom during a round without the permission of the court.
(f) If a recess is taken during a trial for any reason, to the greatest extent possible team members should remain seated in their appropriate positions within the courtroom until the trial resumes.
(g) Official/Competing team members may not use cell phones, Blackberries, PDAs, laptops or other electronic communication devices during a trial.
(h) All electronic communication devices (belonging to team members, coaches, contest participants and observers) should be turned off during the entirety of the trial.
Rule 22. Viewing a Trial
(a) Team members, alternates, coaches, and any other persons directly associated with a mock trial team are not allowed to view other teams in competition, so long as their team remains in the competition.
(b) A team that has been eliminated from one level of the competition may not share its scoresheets, judge/evaluator comment sheets, or other observations of an opponent’s performance with another team that remains in the competition, until that team is eliminated from the competition entirely.
(c) A violation of Rule 22(b) will be considered as occurring “outside the bar” and will be handled in accordance with the procedure outlined in Rule 35.
Rule 23. Videotaping/Photography
(a) Any team has the option to refuse participation in videotaping, tape‐recording, still photography, or media coverage.
(b) Media coverage will be allowed by the two teams in the championship round at the State Finals.
(c) Media representatives authorized by the trial coordinator will wear identification badges.
C. JUDGING Rule 24. Decisions All decisions of the judging panel are FINAL. Rule 25. Composition of Panel
(a) The judging panel will consist of at least three individuals. The composition of the judging panel and the role of the presiding judge will be at the discretion of the trial coordinator, with the same format used throughout the competition, as follows:
1. One presiding judge and two attorney scoring evaluators (all three of whom complete score sheets); or
2. One presiding judge and three attorney scoring evaluators (scoring evaluators only complete score sheets).
(b) The semi‐final and/or championship round may have a larger panel at the discretion of the trial coordinator.
(c) All presiding judges and scoring evaluators receive the judge’s edition of the mock trial manual, which includes orientation materials and a bench brief and a briefing in a judges’ orientation.
(d) Judging panel members should turn off and/or not use their cell phones, pagers, PDAs, etc. during a trial round.
(e) In the event of an emergency (ex. sudden illness, etc.), if a judging panel member must leave the courtroom, the presiding judge will call for a brief recess, assess whether the judging panel member will be able to return in a reasonably short period of time and then resume the proceedings upon the panel member’s return to the courtroom. During the entirety of any type of recess, Rule 21(f) applies to the teams in the courtroom.
(f) If the panel member is unable to return to the courtroom, the trial coordinator must be informed and the panel composition adjusted to best meet the requirements of the rules and the round should resume.
Rule 26. Scoresheets/Ballots
(a) The term “ballot” will refer to the decision made by a scoring judge as to which team made the best presentation in the round. The term “scoresheet” is used in reference to the form on which speaker and team points are recorded. Scoresheets are to be completed individually by the scoring judges. Scoring judges are not bound by the rulings of the presiding judge. The team
69
that earns the highest points on an individual judge’s scoresheet is the winner of that ballot. The team that receives the majority of the three ballots wins the round. The ballot votes determine the win/loss record of the team for power‐matching and ranking purposes. While the judging panel may deliberate on any special awards, (i.e., Outstanding Attorney/Witness) the judging panel may not deliberate on individual scores.
(b) When exceptional presentations are made, the judging panel has the option of recognizing one Outstanding Attorney and/or one Outstanding Witness per competition round. This award is determined by a majority vote of the judging panel and will be announced at the closing assembly following preliminary rounds.
(c) Judging panel members may not discuss the individual speaker or team points from their individual ballot with team members, team coaches or any other individual directly related to a team in the competition. In addition to the oral debriefing, judging panel members will be provided with an optional judging panel worksheet (8.5”x14”) on which they may record any individual observations they wish to share with a team or team member; team members, team coaches and other individuals directly related to a team in competition may not challenge a judging panel member with respect to his/her scores.
(d) Any questions regarding the accuracy of mathematical computations on a completed scoresheet, blanks on a completed scoresheet and/or the accuracy of a team’s final record at any given level of the competition must be brought to the attention of the trial coordinator on site by the primary teacher or attorney coach within 30 minutes of the announcement of the teams moving on to the semi‐final or final round or the announcement of the winner of that level of the competition.
Rule 27. Completion of Scoresheets
(a) Scoresheets are to be completed in four steps: 1. Speaker Points—The scoring evaluator will
record a number of speaker points (1‐10) for each section of the trial.
2. Sub‐Total—At the end of the trial, the scoring evaluator will total the sum of each team’s individual speaker points and place this sum in the Sub‐Total box.
3. Team Points—The scoring evaluator will give a number of points (1‐10) to each team in the Team Points box. NO TIE IS ALLOWED IN THE TEAM POINT BOX.
4. Final Point Total—The scoring evaluator will add the sub‐total and team points boxes to achieve a final point total for each team. NO TIE IS ALLOWED IN THE FINAL POINT TOTAL BOX. The team with the highest number of points in the Final Point Total box receives the ballot from that scoring judge.
(b) Each scoring evaluator may wish to consider specific point deductions for rules violations, which the scoring evaluator has observed during
the trial, whether or not the formal dispute process has been invoked. Deductions may be considered for violations and charged against the score of an individual speaker (in the Speaker Points categories) or against the entire team (in the Team Points category). Examples of rule violations include but are not limited to: Unfair Extrapolations (Rule 4); Exceeding Time Limits (Rule 14); Use of Unapproved Supplemental Material (Rule 20); Improper Courtroom Decorum (Rule 40 and Ethics Code §1); Student Work Product (Rule 41 and Ethics Code §3); and Excessive or Frivolous Objections (Ethics Code §1).
(c) Should only two scoring evaluators be available for a round, the trial coordinator shall average the scores of the scoring evaluators present at the specific round to achieve the required third score. The third scoring evaluator’s score shall equal one‐half the sum of the other two scoring evaluators’ total scores for Plaintiff/Prosecution and Defendant/Defense.
(d) Fractions will be rounded to the nearest higher whole number.
(e) In the rare instance that the third scoresheet has a tie in the Final Point Total boxes, the philosophy outlined in Rule 28(a)(4) applies; only the point spread between the two actual scoresheets from the round will be compared. In this case, whichever team has the greatest point spread is the team that should receive the ballot of the third scoresheet. However, the Final Point Total of the third should remain as a tie and be factored into the point summaries used in power matching.
(f) In cases where a scoresheet is submitted with a blank in a speaker point or team point box, the scoring coordinator will make every effort to contact that evaluator to have the evaluator complete the scoresheet. In the event that the evaluator cannot be reached either by phone or in person to correct the scoresheet, the scoring coordinator will fill in the blank by averaging the speaker points awarded by that evaluator for that squad. The scoring coordinator will add this averaged total to the blank box, initial the addition, note on the scoresheet that it is an averaged point award, correct the final point total box and notify the mock trial office.
Rule 28. Team Advancement
(a) Teams will be ranked based on the following criteria (the “Ranking Rule”) in the order listed: 1. Win/Loss Record—equals the number of
rounds won or lost by a team. 2. Total Number of Ballots—equals the number
of scoring judges’ votes a team earned in preceding rounds.
3. Total Number of Points Accumulated in Each Round
4. Point Spread against Opponents—The point spread is the difference between the total points earned by the team whose tie is being
70
broken less the total points of that team’s opponent in each previous round. The greatest sum of these point spreads will break the tie in favor of the team with the largest cumulative point spread if the teams are in the winning bracket. If the tie occurs between two teams in the losing bracket, then the tie will be broken in favor of the team receiving the smallest cumulative point spread.
(b) The results of the performance of each team’s Plaintiff/Prosecution and Defendant/Defense sides in different courtrooms will not be added together for averaging purposes, to determine which teams advance, for breaking a tie, or for any other purpose.
(c) The championship round (and semi‐final round, when utilized) stands alone, with each team beginning with a clean slate. If the two teams in the championship round tie in the following three categories in this order—win/loss of courtroom, number of ballots, and number of points—the trial coordinator will use this procedure to resolve the tie: 1. Figure the point spread for each ballot won by a
team and 2. Add the point spreads for each team. The team with the largest cumulative point spread wins the championship. Only in the extremely rare event that this point‐spread total also results in a tie, Rule 28 would be invoked in its entirety, thus evaluating the teams’ performances throughout this level of competition (i.e., the State Finals would look only at performance at the State Finals level). The trial coordinator would examine the individual team records, taking each of the following steps in this order until the tie is broken: 1. Compare the win/loss records; 2. Compare the ballot records from preliminary
rounds; 3. Compare the total number of points earned in
preliminary rounds; 4. Compare the point spread from the preliminary
rounds. At each step, the tie is broken in favor of the team with the highest number (i.e., more wins, ballots, points, or larger point spread than the opponent).
(d) Announcement of the results of regional champion rounds are subject to verification by the state mock trial office before those results become official.
(e) Wildcard Teams at State Finals: “Wildcard” teams will be chosen randomly, one from the southern and one from the northern mock trial regions. The mock trial office will pool all regional finalist teams from these two areas and draw the two “wildcard” teams. These two “wildcard” teams will advance to the state finals competition. No matches at the state competition (random or power‐matches) will be affected by regional conflicts. (More details and specific procedures for implementation regarding the “Wildcard Teams” may be found in the Coaches’ Manual.)
Rule 29. Power Matching/Seeding (Additional explanations regarding the power‐match scoring system may be found in the Coaches Manual.)
(a) A random method of selection will determine
opponents in the first round. A power‐match system will determine opponents for all other rounds. A discussion of the power match system is included in the Coaches’ Manual and is thereby incorporated into the Rules of the Competition. (A copy of the Coaches’ Manual is posted on the GHSMTC website.)
(b) Power matching will provide that: 1. Pairings for the first round will be at random.
In the first round, the P and D squads from any given school team will be matched randomly with the P and D squads from two other school teams. School team matches (or “team to team” matches—where the P and D of two schools are matched only against each other) are prohibited in the first round.
2. All teams are guaranteed to present each side of the case twice.
3. Brackets will be determined by win/loss record. Plaintiff/Prosecution and Defendant/Defense squads of each team will be matched according to their separate performances in the first round. Sorting within brackets will be determined in the following order: (1) win/loss record; (2) ballots; (3) speaker points; then (4) point spread. The squad with the highest number of ballots in the bracket will be matched with the opposing squad with the lowest number of ballots in the bracket; the next highest with the next lowest, and so on until all teams are matched.
4. If there are an odd number of squads in a bracket, the squad in the bottom of that bracket will be matched with the top squad from the next lower bracket.
5. Teams will not meet the same opponent twice in the preliminary rounds.
6. To determine the two teams rising to the championship round, win/loss, ballot, and point scores will be totaled for each team’s Plaintiff/Prosecution and Defendant/Defense squads. The two teams with the best combined ranking in these categories in this order (i.e., win/loss, ballot, and point scores) will rise to the championship round.
7. In regions operating under emergency circumstances with only four teams competing, the scoring coordinator will rank those teams after the randomly matched first round in order using the Ranking Rule as outlined in Rule 28(a). When setting matches for the second round, the scoring coordinator will observe the power matching procedure outlined in Rule 29 as closely as possible while adhering first and foremost to the following restrictions in setting the round two matches for four teams: i. No team will be matched against itself. ii. No squad will be matched against the
same squad it encountered in the first round’s random draw.
71
iii. Team to team matches will be avoided in all preliminary rounds.
(c) At the regional level, the two teams emerging with the strongest record from the two preliminary rounds (producing scores from four courtrooms) will advance to the final round. The first‐place team will be determined by the win/loss record, ballots, and total points earned (in this order) from the championship round only. Ties will be broken following the procedure outlined in Rule 28.
(d) At the regional level, where 10 or fewer teams are competing, the two teams emerging with the strongest record from the two preliminary rounds (producing scores from four courtrooms) will advance to the final round. The first‐place team will be determined by the win/loss record, ballots, and total points earned (in this order) from the championship round only. Ties will be broken following the procedure outlined in Rule 28.
(e) If a region has 11+ teams competing, that regional competition will include a semi‐final round after the two preliminary rounds. The top four teams determined by the two preliminary rounds will compete in the semi‐final round. The most powerful team will be matched with the least powerful team, and the two middle teams will be matched together, regardless of whether the squads have competed against each other in the preliminary rounds. The two most powerful teams emerging from the semi‐final round will rise to the championship round. The regional champion team will be determined by the win/loss record, ballots, and total points earned (in this order) from the championship round only. Ties will be broken following the procedure outlined in Rule 28.
(f) The State Finals competition will include a semi‐final round after the two preliminary rounds. The top four teams determined by the two preliminary rounds will compete in the semi‐final round. The most powerful team will be matched with the least powerful team, and the two middle teams will be matched together, regardless of whether the squads have competed against each other in the preliminary rounds. The two most powerful teams emerging from the semi‐final round will rise to the championship round. The state champion team will be determined by the win/loss record, ballots, and total points earned (in this order) from the championship round only. Ties will be broken following the procedure outlined in Rule 28.
Rule 30. [reserved] Rule 31. Effect of a Win by Default For the purpose of advancement and seeding, when a team wins by default, the winning team for that round will be given a win and the number of ballots and points equal to the average of all winning teams’ ballots and points of that same round. A win by default can only occur under the circumstances outlined in Rule 11. D. DISPUTE SETTLEMENT
Rule 32. Reporting a Rules Violation/Inside the Bar
(a) Disputes, which involve team members competing in a competition round and occur within the bar, must be filed immediately following the conclusion of that trial round. Disputes must be brought to the attention of the presiding judge at the conclusion of the trial.
(b) If any team believes that a substantial rules violation has occurred, one of its team member attorneys must indicate that the team intends to file a dispute. The scoring panel will be excused from the courtroom, and the presiding judge will provide the team member attorney with a dispute form, on which the team member will record in writing the nature of the dispute. The team member may communicate with counsel and/or team member witnesses before lodging the notice of dispute or in preparing the form.
(c) At no time in this process may team coaches communicate or consult with the team member attorneys. Only team member attorneys may invoke the dispute procedure.
(d) The dispute procedure described in this rule may not be used to challenge an action by the presiding judge which a team believes to materially depart from the rules of the mock trial competition. If a team believes that such a material departure has occurred, one of its team member attorneys must move, during the trial round, for compliance with the rules of the mock trial competition in accordance with Rule 17. (See Rule 33a for resolution procedure)
(e) Rules violations and/or disputes, which involve teams, individual team members or coaches during the course of the round or during the competition day, which are not brought to the attention of the presiding judge during a round (under Rule 32a) or to the trial coordinator’s attention during the competition day by a teacher or attorney coach (under Rule 35), but which are discovered in the normal course of organizing and running the business of the competition on competition day and which are discovered by the trial coordinator or one of his/her coordinating team members, should be dealt with on‐site (see Rule 33b & c for resolution procedure).
Rule 33. Dispute Resolution Procedure (a) The presiding judge will review the written dispute
and determine whether the dispute should be heard or denied. If the dispute is denied, the judge will record the reasons for this, announce her/his decision to the Court, retire to complete his/her scoresheet (if applicable), and turn the dispute form in with the scoresheets. If the judge feels the grounds for the dispute merit a hearing, the form will be shown to opposing counsel for their written response. After the team has recorded its response and transmitted it to the judge, the judge will ask each team to designate a spokesperson. After the spokespersons have had time (not to exceed three minutes) to prepare their arguments, the judge will conduct a hearing on the dispute, providing each
72
team’s spokesperson three minutes for a presentation. The spokespersons may be questioned by the judge. At no time in this process may team coaches communicate or consult with the team member attorneys. After the hearing, the presiding judge will adjourn the court and retire to consider her/his ruling on the dispute. That decision will be recorded in writing on the dispute form, with no further announcement.
(b) Rules violations and/or disputes brought by trial coordinators and/or a member of the coordinating team must be dealt with on site and in consultation with the appropriate Director of Competitions, the Rules Subcommittee Chair, the State Coordinator, the Chair of the Committee, either Vice Chair of the Committee and/or the Special Consultant to the Committee. The trial coordinator should request a verbal explanation of the violation and/or dispute from the offending team, individual or coach before contacting the appropriate and/or available HSMT leader. In consultation, the trial coordinator and the HSMT leader(s) contact will decide the outcome of the situation. All decisions in this process made by the trial coordinator in consultation with HSMTC leadership will be considered final.
(c) If a trial coordinator, in consultation with HSMTC leadership, determines that a rules violation did occur as described in Rules 32(b) and 33(b), the trial coordinator and HSMTC leader(s) may choose to impose one or more of the consequences outlined in Rule 10(e) 1‐5.
Rule 34. Effect of Violation on Score If the presiding judge determines that a substantial rules violation has occurred, the judge will inform the scoring judges of the dispute and provide a summary of each team’s argument. The scoring judges will consider the dispute before reaching their final decisions. The dispute may or may not affect the final decision, but the matter will be left to the discretion of the scoring judges. Rule 35. Reporting of Rules Violation/Dispute Outside the Bar on Competition Day (a) Time is of the essence in all matters during any level of
the competition. Coaches and team members are expected to communicate before and after competition rounds on a variety of competition‐related topics, in addition to student performance. Moreover, coaches should communicate with each other during the course of the competition day so that they are aware, within a reasonable amount of time, of events that occur during the competition that relate to their competition team, including any potential outside the bar rules violation/dispute that may have occurred.
(b) A Rules Violation/dispute, which involves people other than team members and/or occurs outside the bar only during a trial round on competition day, may be brought by the primary teacher or attorney coaches exclusively. Such disputes must be brought to the attention of the trial coordinator as soon as possible, but in no event more than 30 minutes after the end of the round in which the alleged violation occurred. The complaining party must complete a dispute form in
order for the dispute to be heard. The form will be taken to the tournament’s communication’s center, whereupon a dispute resolution panel will: 1. Notify all pertinent parties; 2. Allow time for a response, if appropriate; 3. Conduct a hearing; and 4. Rule on the charge.
(c) The trial coordinator and/or his/her designated dispute resolution panel must handle all disputes of this type on site and on the day of the competition. The dispute resolution panel may notify the judging panel of the affected courtroom of the ruling on the charge.
(d) The dispute resolution panel will be composed of designees, including available HSMTC leaders, appointed by the trial coordinator, who may also sit on the panel.
(e) The decision of the dispute resolution panel in these matters will be considered final and no appeals will be heard.
(f) If a trial coordinator, in consultation with HSMTC leadership, determines that an “outside the bar” rules violation did occur, the trial coordinator and/or HSMTC leader(s) may choose to impose one or more of the consequences outlined in Rule 10(e)(1‐5).
(g) Teams shall not bring outside the bar disputes/issues that arise on competition day directly to the state mock trial office for consideration at any time.
(h) If a coach discovers a potential outside the bar violation after the 30‐minute time frame for disputes has elapsed, but on the same day that the alleged violation occurred, and wishes to have the matter reviewed, that coach is required to bring the issue to the attention of the trial coordinator before leaving the competition site. The trial coordinator will then convene the dispute resolution panel to review the matter as described in sections (b) through (e) of this rule. If a coach leaves the competition site knowing that a potential outside the bar rules violation/dispute has occurred, but without formally bringing it to the attention of the trial coordinator, the team forfeits the right to file the complaint or have the matter reviewed in any way.
(i) Only under the most extenuating of circumstances, which must be described in writing, may a coach bring a complaint of an outside the bar rules violation/dispute to the Rules chair on the Monday after that level of the competition has concluded. If the Rules Chair determines that the issue could not be brought to the attention of the trial coordinator at the competition site, s/he will review the issue and may choose to request a response from the alleged offender in order to gain a clearer understanding of the situation. The Rules Chair may resolve the dispute at the time it is submitted; if the Rules Chair determines that a violation did occur, s/he, in consultation with other HSMTC leaders and with the advice of the State Coordinator, may impose one or more of the consequences outlined in Rules 10(e)(1‐5) on the offending team, coach, or individual team member.
(j) The Rules Chair, in his/her sole discretion, may also elect not to resolve the dispute but to include the
73
issue in the rules review at the next meeting of the Subcommittee on the Rules. Regardless of whether the dispute is resolved, it will have no bearing on the outcome of any competition round(s) during the competition level at which the dispute arose.
II. RULES OF PROCEDURE
A. BEFORE THE TRIAL Rule 36. Trial Squad Roster Form Copies of the Trial Squad Roster Form must be completed and duplicated by each team prior to arrival at the competition site. Teams must be identified by the code assigned at registration. No information identifying team origin should appear on the form. Before beginning a trial, the teams must exchange copies of the Trial Squad Roster Form. Witness lists should identify the gender of each witness so that references to such parties will be made in the proper gender. Copies of the Trial Squad Roster Form should also be made available to the judging panel and presiding judge before each round. The Trial Squad Roster Form master is in the Team Manual. Rule 37. Stipulations Stipulations shall be considered part of the record and already admitted into evidence. Rule 38. The Record The stipulations, the indictment, and the Charge to the Jury will not be read into the record. B. BEGINNING THE TRIAL Rule 39. Jury Trial The case will be tried to a jury; arguments are to be made to judge and jury. Teams may address the scoring judges as the jury. Rule 40. Standing During Trial Attorneys who are able will stand while giving opening and closing statements, during direct and cross examinations, and for all objections. (See Rule 27 for the treatment of rule infractions.) Rule 41. Student Work Product All opening statements and closing arguments, all direct and cross examinations, and all objections shall be substantially the work product of team members and not be scripted by coaches. (See Rule 27 for the treatment of rule infractions.) C. PRESENTING EVIDENCE Rule 42. Argumentative/Ambiguous Questions and Non‐Responsive Answer (a) Argumentative—An attorney shall not ask a question
which asks the witness to agree to a conclusion drawn
by the questions without eliciting testimony as to new facts; provided, however, that the Court may in its discretion allow limited use of argumentative questions on cross examination.
(b) Ambiguous Questions—An attorney shall not asks questions that are capable of being understood in two or more possible ways.
(c) Non‐Responsive Answer—A witness’ answer is objectionable if it fails to respond to the question asked.
Rule 43. Assuming Facts Not in Evidence An attorney shall not ask a question that assumes unproved facts. However, an expert witness may be asked a question based upon stated assumptions, the truth of which is reasonably supported by the evidence. Rule 44. Lack of Proper Predicate/Foundation Attorneys shall lay a proper foundation prior to moving admission of evidence. After the motion has been made, the exhibits may still be objectionable on other grounds. Rule 45. Procedure for Introduction of Exhibits At the regional and state level of the Georgia High School Mock Trial Competition, the following procedure for introducing evidence is accepted practice. All teams should be prepared to follow these steps and all presiding judges should allow students to utilize this procedure for the introduction of evidence during competition rounds.
1. All evidence will be pre‐marked as exhibits. 2. Timekeepers will not stop time during the
introduction of evidence. 3. Show the exhibit to opposing counsel. 4. Ask for permission to approach the witness. Give
the exhibit to the witness. 5. “I now hand you what has been marked as Exhibit
No.___ for identification.” 6. Ask the witness to identify the exhibit. “Would
you identify it please?” 7. Witness answers with identification only. 8. Offer the exhibit into evidence. “Your Honor, we
offer Exhibit No.___ into evidence at this time. The authenticity of this exhibit has been stipulated.”
9. Court: “Is there an objection?” (If opposing counsel believes a proper foundation has not been laid, the attorney should be prepared to object at this time.)
10. Opposing Counsel: “No, your Honor,” or “Yes, your Honor.” If the response is “yes,” the objection will be stated on the record. Court: “Is there any response to the objection?”
11. Court: “Exhibit No.___ is/is not admitted.” 12. If the exhibit is admitted into evidence, the
attorney may now solicit testimony on its contents.
Rule 46. Use of Notes Attorneys may use notes in presenting their cases. Witnesses are not permitted to use notes while testifying
74
during the trial. Attorneys may consult with each other at counsel table verbally or through the use of notes. Rule 47. Redirect/Recross Redirect and Recross examinations are permitted, provided they conform to the restrictions in Rule 611(d) in the Rules of Evidence. D. SPECIAL MOCK TRIAL OBJECTIONS Rule 48. Special Mock Trial Objections (a) “Objections” during Openings/Closings: No objections
may be raised during opening statements or during closing arguments. If a team believes an objection would have been proper during the opposing team’s opening statement or closing argument, one of its attorneys may, following the opening statement or closing argument, stand to be recognized by the judge and may say, “If I had been permitted to object during [opening statement or closing argument], I would have objected to the opposing team’s statement that ________________.” The presiding judge will not rule on this “objection.” Presiding and scoring judges will weigh the “objection” individually. No rebuttal by opposing team will be heard.
(b) Scope of Closing Arguments: Closing Arguments must be based on the actual evidence and testimony presented during the trial, including rebuttal.
(c) Excessive and/or Intentionally Evasive and/or Non‐Responsive Answers from Witnesses: If a team believes that an opposing team's witness has engaged in excessive or intentional evasiveness and/or excessive or intentional non‐responsive answers on cross, solely to use up an opponent’s allotted cross examination time, and the attorney handling the cross examination of that witness has exhausted all methods of attempting to control that witness, that attorney may, at the end of that cross examination make an “objection” to “excessive/intentional evasiveness/non‐responsiveness” on the part of that witness.
If an attorney makes this mock trial “objection”, he or she may stand at the end of his/her cross examination and ask to be recognized by the presiding judge saying, “Your honor, I object to the excessive/intentional evasiveness/non‐responsiveness displayed by Witness X. I believe his/her sole purpose for using this tactic was to use up my allotted time during cross examination.”
(d) The presiding judge shall allow no response to the objection from the opposing team. The presiding judge shall not rule on this objection; however, the presiding judge may indicate to scoring evaluators that they may consider the “objection” at their discretion when completing their scoresheet (see Rule 27 for point deductions for rules infractions).
(e) Evaluators may deduct points from any witness or witnesses and any team whose conduct properly draws such an objection or reasonably could have properly drawn such an objection even if no objection is made. Evaluators may also award additional points to attorneys or teams that effectively control witnesses/teams that use such delaying tactics during
the cross examination, regardless of an “objection” under this rule being made.
E. CRITIQUE Rule 49. The Critique
(a) The judging panel is allowed 10 minutes for debriefing. The timekeepers will monitor the critique following the trial. Presiding judges are to limit critique sessions to the 10 minutes total time allotted.
(b) Judges shall not make a ruling on the legal merits of the trial. Judges may not inform the students of scoresheet results or the awarding of outstanding attorney or witness certificates.
III. GEORGIA HIGH SCHOOL MOCK TRIAL
COMPETITION RULES OF EVIDENCE In American trials, complex rules are used to govern the admission of proof (i.e., oral or physical evidence). These rules are designed to ensure that all parties receive a fair hearing and to exclude evidence deemed irrelevant, incompetent, untrustworthy, unduly prejudicial or otherwise improper. If it appears that a rule of evidence is being violated, an attorney may raise an objection to the judge. The judge then decides whether the rule has been violated and whether the evidence must be excluded from the record of the trial. In the absence of a properly made objection, however, the evidence will probably be allowed by the judge. The burden is on the mock trial team to know the Georgia High School Mock Trial Competition Rules of Evidence and to be able to use them to protect their client and fairly limit the actions of opposing counsel and their witnesses. For purposes of mock trial competition, the Rules of Evidence have been modified and simplified. They are based on the Federal Rules of Evidence, and its numbering system. Where rule numbers or letters are skipped, those rules were not deemed applicable to mock trial procedure. Text in italics or underlined represent simplified or modified language. Not all judges will interpret the Rules of Evidence (or procedure) the same way, and mock trial attorneys should be prepared to point out specific rules (quoting, if necessary) and to argue persuasively for the interpretation and application of the rule they think appropriate. The Mock Trial Rules of Competition, the Rules of Procedure, and these simplified Rules of Evidence govern the Georgia Mock Trial Competition.
Article I. General Provisions
Rule 101. Scope These rules govern proceedings in the Georgia Mock Trial Competition. Rule 102. Purpose and Construction These rules are intended to secure fairness in administration of the trials, eliminate unjust delay, and promote the laws of evidence so that the truth may be ascertained.
75
Rule 105. Limited Admissibility When evidence which is admissible as to one party or for one purpose, but is not admissible as to the other party or for another purpose is admitted, the judge, upon request, shall restrict the evidence to its proper scope and instruct the jury accordingly. Rule 106. Remainder of or Related Writings or Recorded Statements When a writing or recorded statement or part thereof is introduced by a party, an adverse party may require the introduction at that time of any other part or any other writing or recorded statement which ought in fairness to be considered contemporaneously with it.
Article II. Judicial Notice Rule 201. Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts (a) Scope of rule. This rule governs only judicial notice of
adjudicative facts. (b) Kinds of facts. A judicially noticed fact must be one not
subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.
(c) When discretionary. A court may take judicial notice, whether requested or not.
(d) When mandatory. A court shall take judicial notice if requested by a party and supplied with the necessary information.
(e) Opportunity to be heard. A party is entitled upon timely request to an opportunity to be heard as to the propriety of taking judicial notice and the tenor of the matter noticed. In the absence of prior notification, the request may be made after judicial notice has been taken.
(f) Time of taking notice. Judicial notice may be taken at any stage of the proceeding.
(g) Instructing jury. In a civil action or proceeding, the court shall instruct the jury to accept as conclusive any fact judicially noticed. In a criminal case, the court shall instruct the jury that it may, but is not required to, accept as conclusive any fact judicially noticed.
Article III. Presumptions in Civil Actions and Proceedings
(Not applicable in criminal cases) Rule 301. Presumptions in General in Civil Actions and Proceedings In all civil actions and proceedings . . . a presumption imposes on the party against whom it is directed the burden of going forward with evidence to rebut or meet the presumption, but does not shift to such party the burden of proof in the sense of the risk of non‐persuasion, which remains throughout the trial upon the party on whom it was originally cast.
Article IV. Relevancy and its Limits Rule 401. Definition of “Relevant Evidence” “Relevant evidence” means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Rule 402. Relevant Evidence Generally Admissible: Irrelevant Evidence Inadmissible Relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided by . . . these rules. Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible Rule 403. Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice, Confusion, or Waste of Time Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. Rule 404. Character Evidence Not Admissible to Prove Conduct; Exceptions; Other Crimes
(a) Character evidence. Evidence of a person’s character or a trait of character is not admissible for the purpose of proving action in conformity therewith on a particular occasion, except: 1. Character of accused. In a criminal case,
evidence of a pertinent trait of character offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut same; or if evidence of a trait of character of the alleged victim of the crime is offered by an accused and admitted under Rule 404 (a)(2), evidence of the same trait of character of the accused offered by the prosecution.
2. Character of victim. In a criminal case, evidence of a pertinent trait of character of the alleged victim of the crime offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the same, or evidence of a character trait of peacefulness of the alleged victim offered by the prosecution in a homicide case to rebut evidence that the alleged victim was the aggressor;
3. Character of witness. Evidence of the character of a witness as provided in Rules 607, 608 and 609.
(b) Other crimes, wrongs, or acts. Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove character of a person in order to show an action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident, provided that upon request by the accused, the prosecution in a criminal case shall provide reasonable notice in advance of trial, or during trial if the court excuses pretrial notice on
76
good cause shown, of the general nature of any such evidence it intends to introduce at trial.
Rule 405. Methods of Proving Character (a) Reputation or opinion. In all cases where evidence of
character or a character trait is admissible, proof may be made by testimony as to reputation or in the form of an opinion. On cross‐examination, questions may be asked regarding relevant, specific conduct.
(b) Specific instances of conduct. In cases where character or a character trait is an essential element of a charge, claim, or defense, proof may also be made of specific instances of that person’s conduct.
Rule 406. Habit; Routine Practice Evidence of the habit of a person or the routine practice of an organization, whether corroborated or not and regardless of the presence of eyewitnesses, is relevant to prove that the conduct of the person or organization, on a particular occasion, was in conformity with the habit or routine practice. Rule 407. Subsequent Remedial Measures When, after injury or harm allegedly caused by an event, measures are taken that, if taken previously, would have made the injury or harm less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent measures is not admissible to prove negligence, culpable conduct, a defect in a product, a defect in a product’s design, or a need for a warning or instruction. This rule does not require the exclusion of evidence of subsequent measures when offered for another purpose, such as proving ownership, control, or feasibility of precautionary measures, if controverted, or impeachment. Rule 408. Compromise and Offers to Compromise (a) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of the following is not
admissible on behalf of any party when offered to prove liability for, invalidity of, or amount of a claim that was disputed as to validity or amount, or to impeach through a prior inconsistent statement or contradiction: 1. furnishing or offering or promising to furnish—or
accepting or offering or promising to accept—a valuable consideration in compromising or attempting to compromise the claim; and
2. conduct or statements made in compromise negotiations regarding the claim, except when offered in a criminal case and the negotiations related to a claim by a public office or agency in the exercise of regulatory, investigative or enforcement authority.
(b) Permitted uses. This rule does not require exclusion if the evidence is offered for purposes not prohibited in subdivision (a). Examples of permissible purposes include proving a witness’s bias or prejudice; negating a contention of undue delay; and proving an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation or prosecution.
Rule 409. Payment of Medical and Similar Expenses (civil case rule) Evidence of furnishing or offering or promising to pay medical, hospital, or similar expenses occasioned by an injury is not admissible to prove liability for the injury. Rule 410. Inadmissibility of Pleas, Plea Discussions, and Related Statements Except as otherwise provided in this rule, evidence of the following is not, in any civil or criminal proceeding, admissible against a defendant who made the plea or was a participant in the plea discussions:
1. a plea of guilty which was later withdrawn; 2. a plea of nolo contendere; 3. any statement made in the course of any
proceeding under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure or comparable state procedure regarding either of the forgoing pleas; or
4. any statement made in the course of plea discussions made in the course of plea discussions with an attorney for the prosecuting authority which do not result in a plea of guilty or which result in a plea of guilty which is later withdrawn.
However, such a statement is admissible (i) in any proceeding wherein another statement made in the course of the same plea or plea discussions has been introduced and the statement ought, in fairness, be considered with it, or (ii) in a criminal proceeding for perjury or false statement if the statement was made by the defendant under oath, on the record and in the presence of counsel. Rule 411. Liability Insurance (civil case only) Evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is not admissible upon the issue whether the person acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully. This rule does not require the exclusion of evidence of insurance against liability when offered for another purpose, such as proof of agency, ownership, or control, or bias or prejudice of a witness.
Article V. Privileges Rule 501. General Rule There are certain admissions and communications excluded from evidence on grounds of public policy. Among these are:
1. communications between husband and wife; 2. communications between attorney and client; 3. communications among grand jurors; 4. secrets of state; and 5. communications between psychiatrist and patient.
Article VI. Witnesses
Rule 601. General Rule of Competency Every person is competent to be a witness … Rule 602. Lack of Personal Knowledge
77
A witness may not testify to a matter unless the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. Evidence to prove personal knowledge may, but need not, consist of the witness’ own testimony. This rule is subject to the provisions of Rule 703, related to opinion testimony by expert witnesses. Rule 603. Oath or Affirmation Before testifying, every witness shall be required to declare that the witness will testify truthfully, by oath or affirmation, administered in a form calculated to awaken the witness’ conscience and impress the witness’ mind with the duty to do so. [The mock trial oath is provided in the Rules of the Competition at Rule 12.] Rule 604. Interpreters An interpreter is subject to the provisions of these rules relating to the qualification as an expert and the administration of an oath or affirmation to make a true translation. Rule 607. Who may Impeach The credibility of a witness may be attacked by any party, including the party calling the witness. Rule 608. Evidence of Character and Conduct of Witness (a) Opinion and reputation evidence of character. The
credibility of a witness may be attacked or supported by evidence in the form of opinion or reputation, but subject to these limitations: 1. the evidence may refer only to character for
truthfulness or untruthfulness, and 2. evidence of truthful character is admissible only
after the character of the witness for truthfulness has been attacked by opinion or reputation evidence, or otherwise.
(b) Specific instances of conduct. Specific instances of the conduct of a witness, for the purpose of attacking or supporting the witness’ character for truthfulness, other than conviction of crime as provided in Rule 609, may not be proved by extrinsic evidence. They may, however, in the discretion of the Court, if probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness, be inquired into on cross‐examination of the witness 1. concerning the witness’ character for truthfulness
or untruthfulness, or 2. concerning the character for truthfulness or
untruthfulness of another witness as to which character the witness being cross‐examined has testified.
The giving of testimony, whether by an accused or by any other witness, does not operate as a waiver of the accused’s or the witness’ privilege against self‐incrimination when examined with respect to matters that relate only to character for truthfulness.
Rule 609. Impeachment by Evidence of Conviction of Crime (This rule applies only to witnesses with prior convictions.) (a) General Rule. For the purpose of attacking the
character for truthfulness of a witness,
1. evidence that a witness other than the accused has been convicted of a crime shall be admitted subject to Rule 403 if the crime was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year, under the law under which the witness was convicted, and evidence that an accused has been convicted of such a crime shall be admitted if the court determines that the probative value of admitting this evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect to the accused; and
2. evidence that any witness has been convicted of a crime shall be admitted regardless of the punishment, if it readily can be determined that establishing the elements of the crime required proof or admission of an act of dishonesty or false statement by the witness.
(b) Time Limit. Evidence of a conviction under this Rule is not admissible if a period of more than ten years has elapsed since the date of the conviction or of the release of the witness from the confinement imposed for that conviction, whichever is the later date, unless the Court determines in the interest of justice that the value of the conviction supported by specific facts and circumstances substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect. However, evidence of a conviction more than 10 years old as calculated herein, is not admissible unless the proponent gives to the adverse party sufficient advance written notice of intent to use such evidence to provide the adverse party with a fair opportunity to contest the use of such evidence.
(c) Effect of pardon, annulment, or certificate of rehabilitation. Evidence of a conviction is not admissible if 1. the conviction has been the subject of a
pardon, annulment, certificate of rehabilitation, or other equivalent procedure based on a finding of the rehabilitation of the person convicted and that person has not been convicted of a subsequent crime that was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year, or
2. the conviction has been the subject of a pardon, annulment, or other equivalent procedure based on a finding of innocence.
(d) Juvenile adjudications. Evidence of juvenile adjudications is generally not admissible under this rule. The court may, however, in a criminal case allow evidence of a juvenile adjudication of a witness other than the accused if conviction of the offense would be admissible to attack the credibility of an adult and the court is satisfied that admission in evidence is necessary for a fair determination of the issue of guilt or innocence.
(e) Pendency of appeal. The pendency of an appeal there from does not render evidence of a conviction inadmissible. Evidence of the pendency of an appeal is admissible.
Rule 610. Religious Beliefs or Opinions Evidence of the beliefs or opinions of a witness on matters of religion is not admissible for the purpose of
78
showing that by reason of their nature the witness’ credibility is impaired or enhanced. Rule 611. Mode and Order of Interrogation and Presentation (a) Control by Court. The Court shall exercise reasonable
control over questioning of witnesses and presenting evidence so as to (1) make the questioning and presentation effective for ascertaining the truth, (2) to avoid needless use of time, and (3) protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment.
(b) Scope of cross examination. The scope of cross examination shall not be limited to the scope of the direct examination, but may inquire into any relevant facts or matters contained in the witness’ statement, including all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from those facts and matters, and may inquire into any omissions from the witness statement that are otherwise material and admissible.
(c) Leading questions. Leading questions should not be used on direct examination of a witness (except as may be necessary to develop the witness’ testimony). Ordinarily, leading questions are permitted on cross examination. When a party calls a hostile witness, an adverse party, or a witness identified with an adverse party, leading questions may be used.
(d) Redirect/Recross. After cross examination, additional questions may be asked by the direct examining attorney, but questions must be limited to matters raised by the attorney on cross examination. Likewise, additional questions may be asked by the cross examining attorney on recross, but such questions must be limited to matters raised on redirect examination and should avoid repetition.
Rule 612. Writing Used to Refresh Memory If a witness uses a writing to refresh memory for the purpose of testifying, either—
1. while testifying, or 2. before testifying, if the court in its discretion
determines it is necessary in the interests of justice, an adverse party is entitled to have the writing produced at the hearing, to inspect it, to cross examine the witness thereon, and to introduce in evidence those portions which relate to the testimony of the witness.
Rule 613. Prior Statements of Witnesses Examining witness concerning prior statement.—In examining a witness concerning a prior statement made by the witness, whether written or not, the statement need not be shown nor its contents disclosed to the witness at that time, but on request the same shall be shown or disclosed to opposing counsel.
Article VII. Opinions and Expert Testimony Rule 701. Opinion Testimony by Lay Witness If the witness is not testifying as an expert, the witness’ testimony in the form of opinions or inferences is limited to those opinions or inferences which are (a) rationally based on the perception of the witness and (b) helpful to a clear understanding of the witness’
testimony or the determination of a fact in issue, and
(c) not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702.
Rule 702. Testimony by Experts If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if
1. testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, 2. the testimony is the product of reliable
principles and methods, and 3. the witness has applied the principles and
methods reliably to the facts of the case. Rule 703. Bases of Opinion Testimony by Experts The facts or data in the particular case upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to the expert at or before the hearing. If of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field in forming opinions or inferences, upon the subject the facts or data need not be admissible in evidence in order for the opinion or inference to be admitted. Facts or data that are otherwise inadmissible shall not be disclosed to the jury by the proponent of the opinion or inference unless the court determines that their probative value in assisting the jury to evaluate the expert’s opinion substantially outweighs their prejudicial effect. Rule 704. Opinion on Ultimate Issue (a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), testimony in
the form of opinion or inference otherwise admissible is not objectionable because it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact.
(b) No expert witness testifying with respect to the mental state or condition of a defendant in a criminal case may state an opinion or inference as to whether the defendant did or did not have the mental state or condition constituting an element of the crime charged or of a defense thereto. Such ultimate issues are matters for the trier of fact alone.
Rule 705. Disclosure of Facts or Data Underlying Expert Opinion The expert may testify in terms of opinion or inference and give reasons therefore without prior disclosure of the underlying facts or data, unless the Court requires otherwise. The expert may in any event may be required to disclose the underlying facts or data on cross examination.
Article VIII. Hearsay
Rule 801. Definitions The following definitions apply under this article: (a) Statement. A “statement” is an oral or written
assertion or nonverbal conduct of a person, if it is intended by the person as an assertion.
(b) Declarant. A “declarant” is a person who makes a statement.
79
(c) Hearsay. “Hearsay” is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
(d) Statements which are not hearsay. A statement is not hearsay if: 1. Prior statement by witness. The declarant
testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross examination concerning the statement and the statement is (A) inconsistent with the declarant’s testimony, and was given under oath subject to the penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in a deposition, or (B) consistent with the declarant’s testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge against the declarant of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive, or (C) one of identification of a person made after perceiving the person; or
2. Admission by a party‐opponent. The statement is offered against a party and is a. the party’s own statement in either an
individual or a representative capacity or b. a statement of which the party has
manifested an adoption or belief in its truth, or
c. a statement by a person authorized by the party to make a statement concerning the subject, or
d. a statement by the party’s agent or servant concerning a matter within the scope of the agency or employment, made during the existence of the relationship, or
e. a statement by a co‐conspirator of a party during the course in furtherance of the conspiracy.
The contents of the statement shall be considered but are not alone sufficient to establish the declarant’s authority under subdivision (C), the agency or employment relationship and scope thereof under subdivision (D), or the existence of the conspiracy and the participation therein of the declarant and the party against whom the statement is offered under subdivision (E).
Rule 802. Hearsay Rule Hearsay is not admissible, except as provided by these rules. Rule 803. Hearsay Exceptions, Availability of Declarant Immaterial The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness:
1. Present sense impression. A statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while the declarant was perceiving the event or condition, or immediately thereafter.
2. Excited utterance. A statement relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition.
3. Then existing mental, emotional, or physical conditions. A statement of the declarant’s then
existing state of mind, emotion, sensation, or physical condition (such as intent, plan, motive, design, mental feeling, pain, and bodily health), but not including a statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed unless it relates to the execution, revocation, identification, or terms of declarant’s will.
4. Statements for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment. Statements made for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment and describing medical history or past or present symptoms, pain or sensations, or the inception of general character of the cause or external source thereof insofar as reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment.
5. Recorded Recollection. A memorandum or record concerning a matter about which a witness once had knowledge but now has insufficient recollection to enable the witness to testify fully and accurately, shown to have been made or adopted by the witness when the matter was fresh in the witness’ memory and to reflect that knowledge correctly. If admitted, the memorandum or record may be read into evidence but may not itself be received as an exhibit unless offered by an adverse party.
6. Records of regularly conducted activity. These records include any memo, record, report, or other compilation of data in any form, which meets the following requirements: a. It must be kept in the ordinary course of
business or as part of the ordinary conduct of an organization or enterprise;
b. It must be part of the ordinary business of that organization, business, or enterprise, to compile the data or information;
c. The information must be made for the purpose of recording the occurrence of an event, act, condition, opinion, or diagnosis that takes place in the ordinary course of the business or enterprise;
d. The entry in the record or the compiling of the data must be made at or near the time when the event took place;
e. The recording of the event must be made by someone who has personal knowledge of it.
In order for a document or other form of data to be admissible under this rule, a foundation must be laid as to all of the foregoing requirements by the custodian of the records or other witness found by the Court to be qualified.
18. Learned treatises. To the extent called to the attention of an expert witness upon cross examination or relied upon by the expert witness in direct examination, statements contained in published treatises, periodicals, or pamphlets on a subject of history, medicine, or other science or art, established as a reliable authority by the testimony or admission of the witness or by other expert testimony or by judicial notice.
80
21. Reputation as to character. Reputation of a person’s character among associates or in the community.
22. Judgment of previous conviction. Evidence of a final judgment, entered after a trial or upon a plea of guilty (but not upon a plea of nolo contendere), adjudging a person guilty of a crime punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year, to prove any fact essential to sustain the judgment, but not including, when offered by the Government in a criminal prosecution for purposes other than impeachment, judgments against persons other than the accused. The pendency of an appeal may be shown but does not affect admissibility.
Rule 804. Hearsay Exceptions; Declarant Unavailable a) Definition of unavailability. Unavailability of a
witness” includes situations in which the declarant—(1) is exempted by a ruling of the court of the ground of privilege from testifying concerning the subject matter of the declarant’s statement; or (2) persists in refusing to testify concerning the subject matter of the declarant’s statement despite an order of the court to do so; or (3) testifies to a lack of memory of the subject matter of the declarant’s statement; or (4) is unable to be present or to testify at the hearing because of death or then existing physical or mental illness or infirmity; or (5) is absent from the hearing and the proponent of a statement has been unable to procure the declarant’s attendance (or in the case of a hearsay exception under subdivisions (b)(2), (3), or (4), the declarant’s attendance or testimony) by process or other reasonable means.
b) A declarant is not unavailable as a witness if exemption, refusal, claim or lack of memory, inability, or absence is due to the procurement or wrongdoing of the proponent of a statement for the purpose of preventing the witness from attending or testifying.
c) Hearsay exceptions. The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule if the declarant is unavailable as a witness: 1. Former testimony. —Testimony given as a witness
at another hearing of the same or a different proceeding, or in a deposition taken in compliance with law in the course of the same or another proceeding, if the party against whom the testimony is now offered, or, in a civil action or proceeding, a predecessor in interest, had an opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony by direct, cross, or redirect examination.
2. Statement under belief of impending death. —In a prosecution of a homicide or in a civil action or proceeding, a statement made by a declarant while believing that the declarant’s death was imminent, concerning the cause or circumstances of what the declarant believed to be the impending death.
3. Statement against interest. A statement which was at the time of its making so far contrary to the declarant’s pecuniary or proprietary interest, or so far tended to subject the declarant to civil or criminal liability, or to render invalid a claim by
the declarant against another, that a reasonable person in the declarant’s position would not have made the statement unless believing it to be true. A statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability and offered to exculpate the accused is not admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement.
4. Statement of personal or family history. a. A statement concerning the declarant’s
own birth, adoption, marriage, divorce, legitimacy, relationship by blood, adoption, or marriage, ancestry, or other similar fact of personal or family history, even though declarant had no means of acquiring personal knowledge of the matter states; or
b. a statement concerning the foregoing matters, and death also, of another person, if the declarant was related to the other by blood, adoption, or marriage or was so intimately associated with the other’s family as to be likely to have accurate information concerning the matter declared.
5. Other exceptions. A statement not specifically covered by any of the foregoing exceptions but having equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness, if the court determines that a. the statement is offered as evidence of a
material fact; b. the statement is more probative on the point
for which it is offered than any other evidence which the proponent can procure through reasonable efforts; and
c. the general purposes of these rules and the interests of justice will best be served by admission of the statement into evidence. However, a statement may not be admitted under this exception unless the proponent of it makes known to the adverse party sufficiently in advance of the trial or hearing to provide the adverse party is a fair opportunity to prepare to meet it, the proponent’s intention to offer the statement and the particulars of it, including the name and address of the declarant. For the purposes of the mock trial competition, required notice will be deemed to have been given. The failure to give notice as required by these rules will not be recognized as an appropriate objection.
Rule 805. Hearsay within Hearsay Hearsay included within hearsay is not excluded under the hearsay rule if each part of the combined statement conforms with an exception to the hearsay rule provided in these rules. Rule 806. Attacking and Supporting Credibility When a hearsay statement has been admitted, the credibility of the declarant may be attacked and supported by any evidence, which would be admissible for those
81
purposes if declarant had testified as a witness. Evidence of a statement or conduct by the declarant, inconsistent with the declarant’s hearsay statement, is not subject to any requirement that the declarant may have been afforded an opportunity to deny or explain. If the party against whom a hearsay statement has been admitted calls the declarant as a witness, the party is entitled to examine the declarant on the statement as if under cross examination.
ARTICLE X. Contents of Writing, Recordings, and Photographs
Rule 1002. Requirement of Original To prove the content of a writing, recording, or photograph, the original writing, recording, or photograph is required ... Copies of any case materials are considered as originals.
ARTICLE XI. Miscellaneous Rules
Rule 1103. Title These rules may be known and cited as the Georgia High School Mock Trial Competition Rules of Evidence.
82
Summary of Mock Trial Rules of Evidence and Key Differences with Georgia Rules
Originally prepared by Professor Paul Milich, Georgia State University College of Law Last Updated: October 2010
Foundation for Documents and Other Exhibits – Authentication and best evidence rules do not apply. The
proponent (1) shows the exhibit to opposing counsel; (2) asks the witness to identify it (no disclosure of contents at this time); (3) offers the exhibit into evidence. Mock Trial Rule (“MTR”) 44. Copies of case materials are considered as originals. MTR 1002.
If the document is hearsay and offered under the business record exception, MTR 803(6), the proponent must lay foundation that the document…
(1) was kept in the ordinary course of business; (2) was made in the ordinary course of business; (3) recorded event which occurred in the ordinary course of business; (4) was made at or near the time of the events described; (5) was prepared by someone with personal knowledge of the facts described in the document.
Rule of completeness – opponent may require counsel to include relevant remaining portions of a document at the same time that the original portion is offered into evidence. MTR 106.
Hearsay –Admissions by silence may be admissible against the accused with proper foundation (that the accused likely heard the statement and there is no good reason for his not speaking up. An accused’s silence in police presence can never be used against him).
Agent or employee statements are admissible against principal or employer if made during the agency or employment and the subject matter of the statement relates to the agent’s or employee’s duties – the agent or employee need not have been authorized to make statements on behalf of the principal or employer. MTR 801(d)(2)(D).
Co‐conspirator statements must have been in furtherance of the conspiracy to be admissible against the accused. MTR 801(d)(2)(E).
Instead of the Georgia “res gestae” concept, statements are admissible if: MTR 803(1) – statement described something the speaker was perceiving at that time MTR 803(2) – statement made about an exciting event at or near the time the event occurred
MTR 803(3) – statement described something the speaker was feeling or thinking at the time of the statement – though statements of belief are not admissible to prove the truth of the facts believed
Statements against penal interest are admissible in a criminal case when offered by the prosecution –statements are admissible when offered by the defense only if corroborated by other facts in the case. MTR 804(b)(3).
Experts – The Georgia rule preventing an expert from giving an opinion on the “ultimate issue” does not apply. But an expert still cannot testify that the accused is or is not guilty or that a witness is or is not telling the truth. MTR 704. Expert may base his/her opinion on inadmissible facts if those facts are reasonably relied upon by experts in the field – though the inadmissible facts should not be disclosed. MTR 703. (Same as Georgia’s new rule in civil cases) Expert may refer on direct to pertinent treatises or other authorities on which the expert relied. MTR 803(18).
Impeachment – No vouching rule. Thus, counsel can bring out his own witness’s prior convictions on direct. MTR 607. (Same as the new Georgia rule). A testifying criminal defendant may not be impeached with his prior convictions. MTR 609. Prior inconsistent statements – no need to show or draw the witness’s attention to a prior inconsistent statement before impeaching the witness with it. MTR 613. Counsel may, at the trial judge’s discretion, cross‐examine a witness regarding a collateral event, which demonstrates the witness’s untruthfulness. But the cross‐examiner may not offer supporting evidence if the witness denies the collateral event – counsel must abide the witness’s answer and move on. MTR 608(b).
Wide‐open cross‐examination is permitted, though redirect and re‐cross must be within the scope of the preceding examination. MTR 611.
Character witnesses may give their personal opinion of the subject’s character as well as reputation evidence. MTR 405(a); 608(a). A witness may testify to his or her own habits or the habits of another person. MTR 406.
83
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TIMEKEEPERS Under the Rules of The Georgia High School Mock Trial Competition, all timekeepers are expected to
follow these instructions when keeping time during a competition round. Thank you for your diligence in this matter.
Before Competition Day 1. Timekeepers play an essential role during a mock trial competition round. At least two reliable
students should be recruited to fill these critical positions on the mock trial team. 2. The role of timekeeper is a required role in a competition round. Trial coordinators do not
provide additional volunteer personnel to act as timekeepers. (see 15(d)) 3. NOTE: If a team does not provide their own student timekeepers, that team must submit to
the time kept by their opponent’s timekeeper in the trial round. (see Rule 7(h)) 4. NOTE: If a situation arises where both squads in a given trial round do not provide their own
student timekeepers, the trial coordinator will require coaches from those teams to act as timekeepers during that trial round. (see Rule 7 (h))
5. Rule 14 defines the time blocks allocated to each portion of the trial. Rule 15 describes the duties of a timekeeper. Timekeepers must review the rules for timekeeping and these instructions thoroughly before competition day.
6. Timekeepers must understand how to recognize each part of the trial before competition date. If there are any questions during a trial about whether or not time has stopped, politely ask the presiding judge for clarification.
7. It is suggested that to keep track of which stopwatch is for which side, label the stopwatches “P” and “D” and keep the “P” stopwatch on your left and the “D” stopwatch on your right.
8. Time will not be counted for: objections, extensive questioning from the presiding judge or administration of the oath. Time DOES NOT stop for the introduction of evidence (see Rule 15(c)).
9. Practice timekeeping duties during team rehearsals before competition day. 10. Make copies of the time cards on yellow paper or card stock using the time card template
found in the Coaches Manual. Time intervals may not be altered.
Before the Trial Round 1. On competition day, be sure each timekeeper has
a. At least one time sheet for each round of the competition (including the final round) b. Two stopwatches per side (4 total per team)—NOTE: Some cell phones include a
stopwatch function, but it is strongly preferred, because of issues related to team communication inside the bar & the use of electronic equipment by competing team members during a competition round (see Rule 21), that timekeepers use traditional stopwatches for this task unless an unexpected battery or similar emergency related to a stopwatch arises on site and on competition day.
c. One set of “Time Remaining” cards printed on yellow paper or card stock d. One “Time Card Use” sheet e. Two pencils
2. Enter the round number and team codes in the appropriate space on the time sheet. 3. In the Attorney Task boxes on the Time Sheet, indicate team attorneys presenting each task of
the trial by recording “a,” “b,” or “c” in the space below the task number—“a” would signify the first attorney, “b” the second, and “c” the third.
4. Enter the courtroom and take your position at the end of the jury box, away from any judging panel member. Arrange stopwatches, time cards and Time Card Use sheet.
84
5. Rise when the judge and jury enter the courtroom and then be seated when the presiding judge grants permission.
During the Trial Round 1. Timekeepers for both squads in a competition round will work together as a neutral
“timekeeping team” to insure that time is kept accurately and fairly for both sides in the round. 2. For each task in a trial round, time starts when each attorney starts to speak. (i.e. when the
attorney actually speaks the first word of his/her opening, closing or examination question—examples include but are not limited to, “May It Please the Court…”, or “Your Honor, ladies/gentlemen of the jury…” (for openings/closing) or “Please state your name for the court…” (for examination questions)—NOT when an attorney responds to a presiding judge’s inquiry as to whether that side is ready to proceed, asks for permission to reserve time for a rebuttal, asks for permission to use/move a podium, or to swear a witness, etc.).
2. Time stops when the attorney makes the last statement on completion of a given task. 3. Occasions when time is not counted:
a. From time witness is called until s/he finishes taking the stand (including the administration of the oath)
b. From time an objection is raised until the attorney resumes the task/examination that the objection interrupted
c. During the time a judge may raise questions to a team, the panel or the trial coordinator 4. NOTE: Time stops for OBJECTIONS. Timekeepers will stop time when an attorney says,
“Objection, Your Honor…”. Timekeepers will re‐start time, after the presiding judge’s ruling, when the student attorney says the first word to continue the interrupted task/examination.
5. Time DOES NOT STOP for the introduction of evidence. 6. Reset a stopwatch to zero only at the following times:
a. At the beginning of each side’s opening statement b. At the beginning of each side’s direct examination time block c. At the beginning of each side’s cross examination time block d. At the beginning of each side’s closing argument
7. Do NOT reset a stopwatch to zero at any other time. a. Do not reset stopwatch to zero at the end of a direct or cross examination of a particular
witness, since the timekeeper may need to resume direct examination timing for redirect questioning, and cross examination timing for re‐cross questioning.
b. Do not reset stopwatch to zero at the end of the P’s closing argument, since the timekeeper may need to resume the P’s closing argument timing IF the P side gives a portion of their closing before the D side and then must make a rebuttal after the D side has concluded their closing argument.
8. Timekeepers should display time cards simultaneously throughout the round and the cards must be displayed to both squads (attorneys and witnesses) and the presiding judge only at the intervals set out in the Time Card Use table. The STOP card must be displayed to both teams, the presiding judge and to the scoring judges, as well.
9. Timekeepers may not display any additional increments of time (not outlined on the time card use table) to their own team independently of the opposing team’s timekeeper at any time during the trial.
Discrepancies in Time Between Team Timekeepers During a Trial Round 1. If timing variations of 15 seconds or more occur at the completion of any task of the trial, the
timekeepers are to notify the presiding judge that a time discrepancy has occurred. (see Rule 15(e))
85
2. Timekeepers may raise time discrepancies of more than 15 seconds at the end of each task during the trial presentation (i.e. at the end of each opening, at the end each witness examination, at the end of each cross examination and at the end of each closing argument).
3. To do this, one timekeeper will politely gain the presiding judge’s attention and state: “Your honor, under Rule 15(e), there is a time discrepancy of more than 15 seconds.”
4. The presiding judge will likely ask for an explanation of the discrepancy and will then rule on the time discrepancy before the trial continues. The presiding judge has the option to rule on the discrepancy without any explanation of why it occurred.
5. Timekeepers will synchronize their stopwatches to match the ruling of the presiding judge. (i.e. if the P team’s stopwatch indicates that the P team has 2 minutes left in the direct examination block and the D team’s stopwatch indicates that time has expired for the P team in the direct examination block, the presiding judge MIGHT decide to split the difference in the timing variation and give the P team 1 minute to conclude the direct examination. The D timekeeper would adjust timing to allow for the 1‐minute decision.)
6. Any discrepancy between timekeepers of less than 15 seconds will not be considered a violation. 7. No time disputes will be entertained after the trial concludes. 8. The decisions of the presiding judge regarding the resolution of timing disputes are final.
Things to Remember During a Trial Round 1. The presiding judge has sole discretion to grant time extensions. 2. If time has expired and an attorney continues without permission from the Court, the
timekeepers should indicate so on the timesheet and should continue holding the STOP card until the overage is acknowledged and dealt with by the presiding judge. (see Rule 15(d))
3. The time sequence listed gives the maximum time limits per trial segment (see Rule 14). Time not used in one segment may not be applied to any other segment of the trial.
Concluding a Trial Round 1. After the round concludes, add up the time used for each side and sign the time sheet. 2. Politely obtain the presiding judge’s attention and turn in the time sheet before the presiding
judge retires to the scoring room. No matter the confusion, timekeepers must deliver their time sheets to the presiding judge immediately after the trial round has concluded.
3. If an “inside the bar” dispute is raised at the conclusion of the trial round, a presiding judge may request that timekeepers time portions of the dispute procedure.
4. Reset the stopwatch to zero in order to time the debriefing session. 5. Politely remind the presiding judge that both timekeepers will be timing the debriefing and that
a maximum of 10 minutes is allotted to that portion of the round. 6. Signal the presiding judge with the STOP card when the 10 minutes for debriefing has elapsed. 7. When the debriefing session has ended and the presiding judge has released both teams,
timekeepers should help the teams straighten up the courtroom for the next round.
86
TIME CARD USE CHART Georgia Mock Trial Competition
For Direct Examination
When your stopwatch says Hold up the timecard that says 5:00 20:00 10:00 15:00 15:00 10:00 20:00 5:00 21:00 4:00 22:00 3:00 23:00 2:00 24:00 1:00 24:20 0:40 24:40 0:20 24:45 0:15 24:50 0:10 24:55 0:05 25:00 STOP
For Cross Examination
When your stopwatch says Hold up the timecard that says
5:00 15:00 10:00 10:00 15:00 5:00 16:00 4:00 17:00 3:00 18:00 2:00 19:00 1:00 19:20 0:40 19:40 0:20 19:45 0:15 19:50 0:10 19:55 0:05 20:00 STOP
87
For Opening Statements & Closing Arguments
When your stopwatch says Hold up the timecard that says1:00 4:00 2:00 3:00 3:00 2:00 4:00 1:00 4:20 0:40 4:40 0:20 4:45 0:15 4:50 0:10 4:55 0:05 5:00 STOP
The time sheet and the timecard templates can be found under the FORMS LINK in the secure Team Information section of the website.
Timecards must be printed on yellow paper or card stock.
88
Explanation of the Performance Ratings Used on the Mock Trial Scoresheet
Individual participants will be rated on a scale of 1‐10 speaker points, according to their role(s) in the
trial. The scoring evaluator is scoring INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE in each speaker category and TEAM PERFORMANCE in the Team Points and Total Points boxes. The scoring evaluator is NOT scoring the legal merits of the case.
Scoring evaluators are strongly encouraged to exercise their OPTION of recognizing outstanding individual performance by honoring one OUTSTANDING ATTORNEY and one OUTSTANDING WITNESS per competition round. This would be a joint decision of the majority of the judging panel, including all scoring evaluators and the presiding judge. The appropriate certificates should be completed and signed by the judging panel and returned to the trial coordinator for distribution during the awards ceremony.
Scoring evaluators may individually consider penalties for violation(s) of the Rules of the Competition or the Code of Ethical Conduct. Penalties would reduce point awards in the appropriate performance categories below. Penalties will not be indicated separately on the scoresheet. Please see Rule 27 for the treatment of rule infractions.
POINT(S) PERFORMANCE CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING STUDENT PERFORMANCE
1‐2 Not Effective Unsure of self, illogical, uninformed, not prepared, speaks incoherently, definitely ineffective in communication
3‐4 Fair Minimally informed and prepared. Performance is passable, but lacks depth in terms of knowledge of task and materials. Communication lacks clarity and conviction.
5‐6 Good Good, solid, but less than spectacular performance. Can perform outside the script but with less confidence than when using script. Logic and organization are adequate, but not outstanding. Grasps major aspects of the case, but does not convey mastery of it. Communications are clear and understandable, but could be stronger in fluency and persuasiveness.
7‐8 Excellent Fluent, persuasive, clear and understandable. Organizes materials and thoughts well and exhibits mastery of the case and materials.
9‐10 Outstanding Superior qualities listed for 7‐8 points performance. Additionally, thinks well on feet, is logical, keeps poise under duress. Can sort essential from nonessential and use time effectively to accomplish major objectives. Demonstrates the unique ability to utilize all resources to emphasize vital points of the trial.
On a scale of 1‐10 (with 10 being the highest), rate the performance of the town teams in the
categories on the scoresheet. Each category is to be evaluated separately. DO NOT GIVE FRACTIONAL POINTS. After scoring speaker points for individuals, award 1‐10 points to each team as the team award. Each scoring evaluator should consider “5” as the average team award, with reductions made for team penalties and additions for outstanding team performance. Please see Rule 27 for the treatment of rule infractions.
Teams MAY NOT receive the same team point award, and the final total must not be the same for
each team. Ties are NOT ALLOWED in the Team Points or Final Total boxes. The team with the largest number of total points on the scoresheet wins the judge’s ballot. The team with the largest number of ballots per courtroom wins the courtroom. Scoring evaluators are reminded to total all scores and sign the scoresheet.
Contact the Mock Trial Office for More Information
Stacy Rieke, State Coordinator404-527-8779 or toll-free800-334-6865 (ext.779)
Sponsored by the Young Lawyers Division of the State Bar of Georgia, the Georgia Bar
Foundation, the Council of State Court Judges and the Georgia Civil Justice Foundation
Related Documents
