Past years case information
2003 year's case
The following is a summary of the topics discussed during the session and should be incorporated into the 2003 mock trial materials.
The WisLine Session was held on January 8 to discuss and clarify the rules and case materials for the 2003 Wisconsin High School Mock Trial Tournament. The following is a summary of the topics discussed during the session and should be incorporated into the 2003 mock trial materials. If the changes outlined in this memorandum conflict with those in the handbook or any previously provided materials, the information in this memo supercedes all else.
DO NOT GO BEYOND THE INFORMATION ALREADY PROVIDED IN YOUR HANDBOOK, PREVIOUS MEMOS (IF ANY), AND THE MATERIAL CONTAINED HEREIN.
- Download 2003 Mock Trial case in pdf format
A. REVIEW OF 2003 TOURNAMENT RULE CHANGES
I. Regional Format
A. Regional tournament overview (page 3)
New: If you are in a region with 14 or more teams, the last three rounds will be power-matched. If you are in a region with 8-13 teams, the last two rounds will be power-matched. If you are in a region with fewer than 8 teams, the final round will be power-matched. These are minimums. Each tournament coordinator may elect to power-match a greater number of rounds irrespective of the number of teams at the regional, in his or her sole discretion.
Teams should be prepared for the possibility that they may have to play one side of the case three times. Note: Teams should never play a team they have previously gone against. If possible, they should also never go in front of judges they have previously seen.
II. Rules of the Competition
Rule 1.1. Rules (page 7)
New: Serious disciplinary infractions in any area of the program can result in suspension or dismissal from the program by the State Coordinator.
Questions or interpretations of these rules are within the discretion of the State Coordinator, his/her designee, or the Appeals Panel, whose decision is final.
Rule 1.2 Code of Ethical Conduct
Please be ware of the newly revised Code. You will be responsible for abiding by this code during all times of the competition and all related events.
Rule 1.6. Drop Deadline
New: If a team drops out of the competition without notice after 5:00 p.m. the Thursday prior to competition for reasons other than "An Act of God", the school will not be allowed to compete for at least one year.
Rule 2.3. Unfair Extrapolation
When an attorney objects to an extrapolation, the judge will rule in open court to clarify the course of further proceedings. In the event the judge rules that an unfair extrapolation has occurred, the same number of points will be deducted by each performance judge with the penalties increasing per each subsequent violation.
Rule 3.7. Team Roster Form
New: Schools participating in the tournament must submit an original team roster to the State Coordinator no later than two weeks prior to the competition [both regional and state tournaments]. The roster form should include all team members, coaches and timekeeper. Each role should be clearly identified along with the team ID and school name. A copy should also be submitted to the regional coordinator.
Rule 4.6. Timekeeping
The timekeeper should use a stopwatch [not a watch] to keep time.
Rule 4.13. Viewing a Trial
For those coaches with two teams in the tournament, please stay with one team during an entire trial but you may move between teams between rounds.
Coaches, team members and observers are prohibited from discussing any other team's performance with coaches from other schools and other teams (including their own) that have not yet competed against the team observed.
Rule 6.5 Appeals Process - Regional Tournaments
New: The tournament coordinator in each region has the authority to handle disputes during the regional tournament. Every effort should be made to resolve disputes on the day of the tournament. However, any dispute that arises during the course of the day or at the end of the day that the tournament coordinator is not able to resolve may or may not be eligible for appeal.
Every attempt must be made to resolve any dispute during the course of the day or at the end of the day. The Appeals Panel will not overturn a decision previously made by the regional coordinator nor will it consider matters that were not first directed to the regional coordinator except in extraordinary circumstances.
Power-matching results are not subject to appeal. All scoring adjustments must be made prior to leaving the regional competition and are not subject to appeal. [i.e. errors in tabulating score sheets]
Appeals must be filed with the state coordinator, either by fax or email, by 10:00 a.m. on Monday morning following the regularly scheduled tournament. In addition, the appellant must provide a copy of the materials to each respondent attorney and teacher coach and the regional coordinator. Respondent(s) must reply to the State Coordinator no later than Tuesday at 10:00 a.m. and must provide copies of the response and any other relevant materials to each appellant attorney and teacher coach and the regional coordinator. [See form in coordinator section of the handbook.]
The Appeals Panel (consisting of the State Coordinator and/or three experienced mock trial volunteers) will rule on the appeal by 5:00 p.m. Tuesday and all parties, including the regional coordinator, will be notified.
B. REVIEW AND CLARIFICATIONS OF 2003 CASE
- Does it make any difference that the statements by Carson and Pat are not signed? The statements from Carson and Pat are signed - they are NOT notarized and no, it doesn't make any difference.
- Does it make a difference if the spelling of the name of Baba is seen as Baba or Buba - gender change, any other reason for the change or just misspelled? It should be spelled B-A-B-A. Any other spellings are considered misspellings and there is no indication of gender.
- Are witnesses required to know information from previous statements in the courtroom and are judges aware of this rule? See rules 2.2 and 2.3. A witness is not bound by facts contained in other witness statements, however, each witness is bound by the facts contained in his/her own witness statement, the Statement of Facts, if present, and /or any necessary documentation relevant to his/her testimony.
- Rule 2.3 - what, if any, difference is there between the statement of "unfair extrapolation" or "this information is beyond the scope of the statement of facts"? Our concern is that there is a rule for scope and will scope objections fall under the new rule (under 2.3) for deduction of points from a sustained objection? "Unfair extrapolation" is an objection made by the opposing side to something created by a witness which unfairly aids his/her side's case. "Outside the scope" is an objection made when counsel seeks to bring in some outside evidence that is not contained in the material. Points will only be deducted if the judges deem an unfair extrapolation has occurred or that there was material brought in outside the scope that unfairly benefited one side - or was an attempt to benefit one side.
- In the same rule 2.3, if the witness is allowed to answer in a manner that may not be consistent with their statement, when asked a question when the information is not found in the statement, how will this affect the new extrapolation rule? It will be up to your students to point out the rule to the judges and be able to defend their position. A judge may rule it is or isn't an unfair extrapolation - you will need to coach your students to be prepared for rulings that may not go their way.
- P. 82 of materials - Does this mean Pat can NOT say she is straight? As it states on page 82 of the case materials, "any witness testifying to their OWN sexual preference will be considered as creating a material fact that is outside the scope of mock trial materials. Pat can NOT say she or he is straight!
- The "spitting" incident - if Pat is asked whether she spit on Carson, how is she to answer when her own statement does not include the spitting incident? Pat is free to either agree or deny.
- Of what use is V.P. Zelliger's statement since it is not relevant to the issue of whether Carson beat up Pat? It is not any use for the issue of whether Carson beat up Pat.
- Who has ever heard of a guy named "Faye", "Dana," or "Baba"? It doesn't matter, those are the gender-neutral names we have chosen.
- Are we to assume that Officer Winchester took Baba's and Dana's statements, and therefore Officer Winchester could point out on the diagram where Baba and Dana were located? (how else did he draw the diagram) Yes, you can assume that Officer Winchester took both statements.
- Why can't we enlarge the diagram? Any good lawyer would. Because this is mock trial and as such, we have rules that don't apply in real life - not being able to enlarge or change exhibits is one of them.
- Can the timekeeper be a 13th member (if we have 12 students on our team)? No. [See rule 4.6] The timekeeper is considered a part of your official 12 member team.
- Can a motion for a directed verdict be made? No, see rule 4.8.
- Can a motion to sequester be made? No, see rule 4.9.
- Why are some witness statements notarized and others not? Is this important? Some were purposely not notarized because at the time they were taken, they would not have been. Please do not read anything into the fact that some were notarized and some were not - it is not important to the case.
- Can we assume all witnesses are in the courtroom when each witness testifies and therefore, can question them about what earlier witnesses said? Yes, all witnesses are present in the courtroom and can be questioned following the appropriate rules and procedures.
- The diagram shows the door for classroom 107 open. Was that the door's status at time of incident? You are stuck with what it says in each of the witness statements and statement of acts.
- Can you describe the bust of McCarthy? Can you see through it? You are stuck with what the materials say or do not say!
- Is the diagram to scale? No.
- Can you describe how she/he was holding the backpack? No, that is subject to direct/cross-examination.
- Can you ask how Pat was holding the backpack? Yes, however, you go there at your own peril - otherwise known as the "fisherman's defense" - you want to open that can of worms, you better be prepared to go fishing!
- On page 101, paragraph 2, the incident Zelleger laughed about in the last line, how do we treat this for foundational purposes? What do we do with this? How do we establish knowledge? You'll have to attack it through cross-examination.
- Is the incident that happened in Wyoming considered public knowledge? Yes, it is.
- Is the background provided in the statement of facts and referenced on the bottom of page 81 considered part of the materials? Yes.
- Under the hearsay exception, is Pat considered a party opponent? No, Pat is NOT a party opponent.
- Is Carson charged under the hate statute and if so, don't we need to know whether Pat is gay or lesbian? Yes, Carson is charged under the hate statute. No, you don't need to know whether or not Pat is gay or lesbian only whether there was the perception that Pat was gay or lesbian.
- Can we assume that the last class of the day in room 107 was the biology class they are coming from? Yes, you can assume that!
- On page 94, it mentions bruises that showed up the next day even though the statement was made on the day the incident took place, how do we reconcile that? Please change "(I even had bruises the next day)" to (I even had bruises!)
- Can a witness call another witness statement a lie? NO.
- Rule 801. Hearsay Definitions. Do the non-notarized statements conflict with this rule? NO.
If you have any questions about the mock trial tournament, please feel free to contact Dee Runaas at the State Bar, (608) 250-6191 or (800) 362-8096. You may also reach Dee via e-mail at drunaas@wisbar.org.
Good-luck!
|
