Classroom Law Project 2011-12 High School Mock Trial
Classroom Law Project 2011-12 High School Mock Trial
Confidential
Judges’ Cheat Sheet 3/9/12
Provided below are the condensed rules and condensed facts. First are the rules. This is the area teams often complain about, so we give it top billing here. Hats off to Bruce White, an attorney and co-coordinator in Bend, for formulating this condensed version of rules for judges.
Rules – Condensed Version
Presiding Judge sits on bench and makes rulings. Attorney and educator/community judges sit in jury box. Arguments are to be made to the Presiding Judge and the Jury.
Presiding Judge handles introductory matters (p.60). Be sure to ask for student rosters. The rosters become the forms judges may use to take notes – handy because they will include students’ names and the roles they play.
Trial Sequence: Opening Statement (plaintiff first) 5 minutes per side
(Rule 12, p.45) Direct and re-direct (optional) 20 minutes per side
Cross and re-cross (optional) 10 minutes per side
Closing argument (plaintiff first) 5 minutes per side
(Plaintiff should reserve rebuttal in advance. Judge commonly grants use of left-over time whether reserved or not. Rule 12 and Rule 41, p.51)
Cross-examination is not limited to scope of direct, but may inquire into any relevant matter in witness statement. (Evid. Rule 611, p.56)
Re-direct and re-cross limited to two questions each (Rule 41, p.51), and limited to scope of cross or redirect (Evid. Rule 611(d), p.57).
Bailiff provided by defense; clerk provided by plaintiff. Clerk swears in witnesses, marks exhibits for attorneys, brings student rosters and keeps rules of competition for reference by judge. Bailiff calls court to order, keeps time and announces time remaining (p.46).
Time limits are mandatory. Time stops during objections, questioning by judge, and administration of oath (Rule 13, p.45). Bailiff keeps track of time and displays 3 and 1-minute warning cards. There is an optional opportunity for an unofficial timer from the opposing side to keep a second clock on the proceedings (p.41).
All witnesses must be called (Rule 10, p.45). Attorneys may use notes; witnesses may not (Rule 40, p.51).
Procedure for introducing evidence is set out in Rule 39 (p.50) of materials.
Rules of Evidence – modified from federal rules for use in mock trial; see pages 52-60.
Objections are limited to those covered by rules in the case materials (Rule 38, p.50); common objections are set out on page 67 (leading questions, relevance, hearsay, personal knowledge, opinions, outside scope). See also, Rule 38(1) – No argumentative questions (p.50). Most common objection tends to be that the material is outside the scope or an unfair extrapolation. (See Rule 4, p.42, unfair extrapolation). No objections allowed during opening, closing (Rule 37, p.49).
Exhibits (eight of them) are listed on page i and shown on pages 27-36. No other exhibits or demonstrative evidence allowed (Rule 15, p.46). However, use of the color (online) version of Exhibit 1 is permitted (Listserv Q/A #7); and is identified as Photos of Burns of Lee Cavanaugh (Listserv Q/A#1).
Stipulations are on page 7.
Penalty Points: See page 62. Communication between coaches and team members and failure to call all witnesses result in mandatory 2-point deductions. (Also Rule 16, p.46; Rule 10, p.45.)
New this year:
Use of laptops or other electronic devices is prohibited. (Rule 40, p.51)
Plaintiff team shall sit closest to the jury box. (Rule 33, p.49)
Facts – Condensed Version
Facts. Patterned after the famous McDonald’s spilled coffee case. Plaintiffs may make a case for negligence, defective product design of the cup or lid, and/or dangerously hot coffee. Lee Cavanaugh, the plaintiff and local department manager in a bank, is a passenger in a car when s/he spills coffee and suffers serious burns while on the way to work. Jody Bartlett, Lee’s co-worker and the driver, comes to the aid of Lee but testifies for the defense. Defendant is restaurant Cup of Joe and has prior knowledge of spilled coffee causing burns.
Exhibits
Exhibit 1. Photos of Burns of Lee Cavanaugh. Rather benign looking in the printed materials but quite icky in color. Color photos from online version are permissible (Listerve Q/A #7). Photo is of Lee Cavanaugh’s burns (Listserv Q/A#1).
Exhibit 2. Diagram of Healthy Dermis Layer. Drawing of what healthy skin should look like.
Exhibit 3. Illustration of Burn Damage to Dermis Layers. Drawing of what happens to skin when burned.
Exhibit 4. Exposure to Hot Liquids Chart. How long it takes to get 3d degree burns from hot liquids (not long).
Exhibit 5. Photo of Coffee Cup and Lid. Not the actual cup but identical to what was sold by the defendant to the plaintiff.
Exhibit 6. Memo of Devon Rutledge. Confidential in-office memo about selection of coffee cup and lid. Rutledge’s cup and lid recommendation is not what the company, in fact, used.
Exhibit 7. MustSearch Market Research Study. Market survey suggests that a lot of people like their coffee hot and to-go, and about equal number drink it black as with cream and sugar. Many small factoids may be gleaned from the research but its relevance is questionable.
Exhibit 8. Chinook County Health Department Inspection Report. Documents ongoing issue of burning hot coffee.
Witness Statements
For the plaintiff:
Lee Cavanaugh, the plaintiff, seems to be a reasonable person and is a parent, department manager at a bank, and carpools with co-worker Jody Bartlett (who is testifying for the defense). Cavanaugh is Bartlett’s boss but that has little to do with the case. Bartlett was driving the day they stopped for coffee on their way to work. The coffee spilled – Cavanaugh doesn’t know how – and was very seriously burned. Surgeries, skin grafts, diminished use of hand, and nasty scars result. Notes that the worker selling the coffee, Alex Frye, may have had an axe to grind – but probably didn’t – because their kids played each other in soccer and the parents yelled at each other when the ref made a questionable call.
Dr. Cam Gentry is a burn expert – has a lot of information about burns. Treated Cavanaugh and blames injuries on the defendant. Frequently testifies in trials as an expert witness.
Taylor Vickers, health department inspector, serves on burn injury task force. Inspected Cup of Joe nine times. Very critical of Cup’s practice of keeping coffee temps maintained at burning temps. Past history: young cousin scalded in bathtub; work as fire prevention expert in CA.
For the defense:
Devon Rutledge, is the Director of Quality Assurance (DQA) for Cup of Joe. Acknowledges past complaints of burns due to hot coffee but, when viewed as a percentage of coffee sales, problem is “miniscule.” Sells products according to what customers want, in this case hot coffee. Not necessary to change coffee temp policies. Company line is that “our coffee is hot” – that’s what people want, expect, and they know to be careful. Note typos on lines 32 and 33 (p21): years should read 2006 (not 2004).
Alex Frye is a 28-yr old weekday manager at Cup of Joe and server of hot coffee. Uses industry standards and follows company policy in brewing and holding coffee. Was working the drive-thru, and warned, “Be Careful! That coffee is hot!” and even the cup said, “Hot.” Says that Cavanaugh must have been taking the lid off to add cream and sugar when it spilled. Regarding the kids’ soccer game, admits to being a yeller at games but did not do anything to hurt Cavanaugh – did not even recognize Cavanaugh that day.
Jody Bartlett, works with Cavanaugh at the bank (Cavanaugh is Bartlett’s boss), was driving when they purchased food and coffee that morning. Coffee spilled when car “lurched forward” when entering the street. Called 911 when realized how serious it was. Believes Cavanaugh was taking off the lid when it spilled but did not see Lee remove it. “Lee is my boss and also my friend … I hate what happened but Lee should have been more careful.”
Listserv Q/A
Teams get official answers to their questions via the Listserv. Issues that are helpful for judges to be aware of include:
· Exhibit 1 has been renamed “Photos of Lee Cavanaugh”(Q/A1), and its color online version may be used at trial (Q/A7).
· Witness Rutledge has a date typo in the statement (p21, line 33); it should refer to memo dated 2006 (and therefore match Exhibit 6).
· Sipulation 5 (p7) refers to monetary damages; any monetary damage issue is not a part of this (bifurcated) trial (Q/A12).
· Qualifying expert witnesses - if, when, how – is creating frustration for some teams (see Rule 702, p. 57). Teams have been instructed to “qualify their expert witness … by asking the court to recognize the witness as an expert after the witness has been asked questions about his or her experience, education, etc.” The teams are told that judges will “approve the qualification of witnesses as experts upon hearing a brief exchange … (and that) it is common practice in mock trial to recognize witnesses as experts after minimal questioning; this practice will continue.”
· Other questions are typical of mock trial in that they relate to witnesses’ inconsistencies in dates, times, etc. The complete Listserv Q/A is available by contacting CLP or online, http://www.classroomlaw.org/homepage/mock-trial-listserv-2012/.
1