| Date |
Topic |
Question
(
display questions/answers
) |
| 03/03/2010 |
Calendar |
Could you please send me a more specific calendar for the Mock Trial competition? Thanks. |
| 03/02/2010 |
ProgramRules |
I believe there is a rule prohibiting any "marking" (i.e. highlighting) or altering of exhibits or affidavits. However, I cannot find this rule on any documents available on the website. Would you please direct me to where this rule is located? Thank you. |
| 02/26/2010 |
ProgramRules |
We have a question that involves case materials but relates also to program rules with respect to this case. We know that Parker Plunkeet is not testifying. The Not Guilty Arraignment document states: "The defendant may be tried in his/her absence if he/she fails to appear for trial." We were unable to find any stipulations or other case materials that states unequivocally that Mr. Plunkeet "will be in court." (Will "he" be in court?) RULES QUESTION: Without violating tournament rules, may an attorney for the State ask Sgt. Lassard to identify the defendant, meaning a "dummy" defendant (perhaps picking out any male who can reasonably serve as a surrogate defendant)? |
| 02/15/2010 |
CaseMaterials |
The physics of this case are impossible--for example, an object that is hit goes in the direction of the force that hit it. This being said, Tara Gordon should not have flown out the window of the car, instead going back inside it. Even if she was unable to re-enter the vehicle, she would have stayed close to it. Explain this, please. |
| 02/10/2010 |
CaseMaterials |
There is argument in our team over if Andy Redding was the only cop chasing Billie Jean or if there was multiple cop cars in the chase. On page 4 of Billie Jean's testimony on lines 2-5 it describes his plan. We are wondering if "The Train would the block the cops ,yeah, there were a bunch of police cars by that point, from following me" was just a hypothetical situation or if there was actually a bunch of police cars following. |
| 01/28/2010 |
ProgramRules |
Is there a rule against enlarging the size of the timecards? |
| 01/19/2010 |
CaseMaterials |
Dugan's Porsche and the light rail are moving parallel in the same direction prior to the accident. Redding describes Dugan making a right turn towards the rail, yet the collision impacts the drivers side of the vehicle. This is impossible-a right turn towards a rail moving the same direction as you would result in a passenger side impact. Please advise as to how we should treat this. |
| 01/17/2010 |
CaseMaterials |
Lassard is referred to as both "Detective" and "Sgt." in the case material. Is this inconsistency intended? |
| 01/08/2010 |
CaseMaterials |
On page 11 of TJ Hollenbeck's affidavit, lines 18-24: Are these lines with citation admissible even though they are not part of TJ Hollenbeck's study? |
| 01/07/2010 |
CaseMaterials |
One of the charges is Aggravated Assault with a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument. The "jury instructions" have the definintion of deadly weapon but the definintion of dangerous instrument ARS 13-105(12) is missing. Given the facts of the problem that seems to be a legal definition necessary to the problem since there are no "deadly weapons" in this problem. Will this be corrected?
Further, the aggravated assault charge does not specify which section the defendant is charged w/ i.e 13-1203(1), (2), or (3) and that would seem to be elemental to the charge as well.
Thank you. |
| 12/30/2009 |
CaseMaterials |
Dugan describes his car as a Porsche model 308, "same as Magnum, P.I." Porsche does not make a 308, but Ferrari does, and that's the vehicle from Magnum---Ferrari 308 GTS. The auto is exhibit 4 is clearly a Porsche. Is this a typo in the case, or are the materials written as intended? |
| 12/22/2009 |
CaseMaterials |
Introduction states accident occurred July 14, 2009, while Counts and affidavits state July 8, 2009. On Witness list and title statement on page 8 have the witness name as Hollenbeck. The signed affidavit is for Hollenback. |
| 12/19/2009 |
CaseMaterials |
Has the defendant, Parker Plunkett, pled the Fifth? And will he be present at the Trial? |
| 12/18/2009 |
CaseMaterials |
Clarification on the defendant's not testifying, please. I am aware that constitutionally a defendant need not testify and that a jury should not interpret his not doing so as indicative of guilt. TWO QUESTIONS: 1) Will the "defendant" be court? 2) Might we receive any supplementary case materials that clarifies or addresses this point of law? |
| 12/18/2009 |
CaseMaterials |
An issue with the photo exhibits, Lassard clearly states that he took Exhibit 1 (speed limit sign) and Exhibit 2 (light rail tracks crossing a street) pivtures a couple weeks after the accident (p 16, lines 20-22); however, I can find no witness whose affadavit takes credit for Exhibit 3 (light rail car) or Exhibit 4 (yellow Porsche with driver's front quarter panel crushed in). Did I miss who took those pictures? Lassard has said that the CSI team's film had a problem and that "we lost those pictures. (p 36, lines 17-20). |
| 12/18/2009 |
CaseMaterials |
A point of confusion, in Hollenbeck's affidavit, s/he states that a curriculum vitae was provided all parties (p 8, line 24). Similarly, Hoffman states that s/he created a "trajectory map" (p 25, line 24). And, Lassard states that s/he had "provided counsel with those write-ups," meaning complaints about Plunkett's texting on the job (p 15, lines 5-6). Were these exhibits indadvertently left out of the case materials? |
| 12/18/2009 |
CaseMaterials |
Just a thought regarding the case materials, at the annual advisory meeting (Aug 19), compliments were issued about the inclusion of jury instructions, emphasizing their helpfulness for the students--Will we be receiving such an addendum to the case materials for State of Arizona vs. Parker Plunkett? |
| 12/16/2009 |
CaseMaterials |
In previous years students have been provided with jury instructions and/or applicable statutes. Will the case materials be supplemented with the statutes/jury instructions especially the definitions for "reckless" versus "negligent" and the burden of proof? |
| 12/16/2009 |
CaseMaterials |
There is no forensic science engineering degree offered at the University of Arizona. I believe the case materials are wrong for Jules Hoffman, Ph.D. |
| 12/12/2009 |
CaseMaterials |
On the second page of officer Andy Redding's statement, lines 23-24, it states that "The Porsche then skidded across a couple of lanes and made an abrupt right turn onto Washington, right in front of a light rail train travelling [sic] westbound." On the next page, however, "As I approached the front driver's side of the Porsche I noticed that is was completely crushed." In order for the driver's side to be crushed, it would have to have made a left turn in front of the train, which contradicts the previous statement. Which of these statements is correct? |
| 12/12/2009 |
CaseMaterials |
Within Jules Hoffman's affidavit, there is a discrepancy. On page 26, which is page 32 in the PDF, lines 4-5, he says "Pluckett (sic) could have seen the Porsche for up to five seconds prior to the impact." Later on the same page, in the same paragraph, in lines 11-12, he states "the Porsche would have been visible from the operator's seat for at least four seconds prior to impact."
First, is this discrepancy intentional?
Second, several times within Jules's affidavit, s/he misspells Plunketts name, such as page 21 lines 3, 4, and 12, where s/he calls him "Pluckett." Are these typo's intentional? For the rest of Jules's affidavit, the name is correctly spelled, it is just within the first paragraph on that page. |
| 12/12/2009 |
CaseMaterials |
Redding states:
None of the five passengers [aboard the Metro] saw the Porsche or any of the events preceding the accident. (39)
Gonzales states:
I saw the yellow blur of a fancy sports car zooming right up next to us. No question in my mind that was the car the police were after. It was moving fast. As I focused, I saw someone hanging out the passenger window... (26).
Gonzales continues like that for some time, describing "the events preceding the accident," in a direct contradiction of Redding's testimony. Any ideas of what to make of this, and what to do with it (for both sides)?
Is this discrepancy intentional? |
| 12/11/2009 |
CaseMaterials |
Will we receive jury instructions as part of the case (perhaps at the mock pretrial conference on December 22, 2009)? |
| 12/11/2009 |
CaseMaterials |
Our Winter break starts on December 18th -- will we have the new case materials to distribute by then, or will we have to wait until January? |
| 12/08/2009 |
CaseMaterials |
When will the case materials be available? Can you give an approximate date, please? |
| 12/07/2009 |
CaseMaterials |
Is there a specific date the case materials will be available? |
| 12/03/2009 |
CaseMaterials |
Will we be able to get the competition case materials within the next week? My students will be leaving for Winter Break in the next two weeks.
Thanks |
| 11/28/2009 |
CaseMaterials |
Will the 2009-20010 case materials be available before December? |
| 11/17/2009 |
CaseMaterials |
How soon will the 2009-2010 case be posted online for download? |
| 03/22/2009 |
ProgramRules |
The rule says that we keep our original code from regionals. That seems to defeat the concept of anonymity. Will we get a new code for State or should I put the old code on the team roster? |
| 03/19/2009 |
RulesEvidence |
Are you allowed to bring someone elses affidavid into evidence to address your witness with? |
| 02/18/2009 |
ProgramRules |
I looked in my case, and searched this site for a list of objections alowed by the state of Arizona's mock trial program, is their somewhere this is list and I am just looking in the wrong place? The only reason I ask this is because in a recent scrimage with another high school, they brought up the fact that speculation is not an acceptable objection in mock trial. |
| 02/18/2009 |
CaseMaterials |
Is Chris Hopp an expert witness? |
| 02/12/2009 |
CaseMaterials |
Jamie Anderson's affidavit attributes the Bus Incident to 8th Grade (pg. 28) while Taylor's affidavit says that it occurred in the Seventh Grade (pg. 41). Which year did this occur? |
| 02/04/2009 |
CaseMaterials |
There is a footnote on pg 16 regading the defendant not being prosecuted by the County Attny. Are we allowed to use this in questioning or will this be beyond the scope of the case? |
| 02/03/2009 |
CaseMaterials |
Going over the case with the kids, they noticed the dates of the emails from the school are March 6-10.
The 8th and 9th of March were Sat/Sun. Was this an oversight or are we not reading the evidence correctly?
|
| 01/31/2009 |
CaseMaterials |
Not a big deal, but is Dr. Robertson's middle initial "R" as s/he has signed her/his statement or "D" as it appears in both the witness list and at the top of the doctor's statement (p.36)? |
| 01/31/2009 |
CaseMaterials |
I have been monitoring the website regularly and even today re-checked the case materials, but I have not located the revised Exhibit 3 (Chat Room, March 9, 2008 with time discrepencies) which, in an earlier reply to this same "flaw," the responder had stated that a corrected version of Exhibit 3 would be posted. Is is posted somewhere I have not looked? |
| 12/16/2008 |
CaseMaterials |
Correction needed - Currently Fataflaw sends a message before signing on. Need to change time for sign on to: 4:32 PM
Page 59, Exhibit 3, "Chat Room Excerpt, Thursday, March 9, 2008"
Fatalflaw signs on at 4:42 PM
Fatalflaw: 4:33 PM Jammin still there. Time is running out..... |
| 12/14/2008 |
CaseMaterials |
How much Lamaprox did Dr. Robertson prescribe? 10 mg (medical records) or 15 mg (affidavit)?
When did Jamie first come to see Dr. Robertson in 2008? April (affidavit) or March (medical records)? |
| 12/14/2008 |
CaseMaterials |
In Ex3, it says that Fatalflaw logged on at 4:42. However, the next post is at 4:33 and Jammin logged off at 4:34 in response. Is the time of 4:42 a typo? |
| 12/05/2008 |
ProgramRules |
I have a Mock Trial student who is also interested in doing the Court Artist Contest. Is it permissible to put her down as an alternate for round one and then have her participate in the trial later in the day? |
| 12/03/2008 |
CaseMaterials |
It's a small woops but, on the witness list the Dr. is Dr. Robinson, but the affidavit says Dr. Robertson. Are we going with Robertson? |
| 11/27/2008 |
CaseMaterials |
Follow-up to my earlier question regarding p 59 of Exhibit 3.
Fatalflaw signs on at 4:42 PM
Fatalflaw posts at 4:33 PM
Jammin signs off at 4:34 PM
Fatalflaw signs off at 4:46 PM
The middle two times are a discrepancy, especially when checked against Exhibit 5. There, Fatalflaw (3/9) posts at 4:43 PM.
QUESTION: Shouldn't the two middle times for the March 9 chat room (p 59) be FF's posts at 4:43 and Jammin's exits at 4:44?
|
| 11/25/2008 |
CaseMaterials |
See Chat Room Except for Thursday, March 9, 2008. On p 59, Fatalflaw is recorded as signing in at 4:42 PM; however, FF's posting after signing in ("Jammin is till there. . . .") is listed at 4:33 PM. Jammin then signs off at 4:34 PM. QUESTION: Should Fatalflaw's sign-on have been 4:32 (not 4:42)? |
