Law I: Mock Trials

Intro to Law

Mock Trials

Paperwork Template

TEAM INFORMATION

Party (Prosecution or Defense):

Class Period:

Team Members:

Opening Statement: Performed by

Closing Argument: Performed by

Witness #1: Performed by

Witness #2: Performed by

Witness #3: Performed by (If Necessary)

Direct Examination on Witness #1: Performed by

Direct Examination on Witness #2: Performed by

Direct Examination on Witness #3: Performed by (If Necessary)

Cross Examination on Witness []: Performed by

Cross Examination on Witness []: Performed by (If Necessary)

OPENING STATEMENT

This case is about lying, lying for profit. The evidence will show that these five men seated over here lied to the public in order to make millions of dollars in profit. Not just for their company, but for themselves.

These men were all executives at Enron. They were part of a specific unit, the division called Enron Broadband Services. The evidence will show that they portrayed that business as something it wasn’t, namely a success. And they did it to pump up Enron’s stock price and to line their own pockets. Over the course of this trial, you will learn that people on the outside of Enron’s windows didn’t get to see inside. You see, the story reflected from the Broadband division was all good news; but it was just that, a story. You will learn the facts, the inside story. You will learn what these men didn’t want the public to see. Over the course of this trial, we will present evidence to you that these men painted a picture of their business as a success, as cutting edge, while they hid the real story from the public view. Witnesses will testify that the business was actually in pretty rough shape. It wasn’t making money. It didn’t have cutting-edge products, and it didn’t provide sophisticated services. From the outside, the Broadband division appeared to be a success. It was Enron’s answer to the Internet fever of the 1990s. But the business was never what these men claimed. This case is about what these men claimed. First and foremost, it’s about what they said about the business and, just as importantly, it’s about what they didn’t say.

The evidence will show that these men knew what we all learned later on, that Enron was a fraud. This is important, ladies and gentlemen, because these men, they were supposed to be straight with the public, to tell the unvarnished truth. The evidence will show that they didn’t do that and they didn’t do that because to do so wouldn’t help the stock price and it wouldn’t help themselves personally profit from it. So, they hid the truth and they pocketed millions generated by their lies.

We will prove that the mission of Enron Broadband Services was to pump up the Enron stock price by telling investors that they had the answer, the answer to the congested Internet. For some of these men, that meant inflating their own fortunes by selling stock. And you will hear that some of them became millionaires, literally, overnight. And they did it while they had the inside story and while the public was none the wiser.

We will present evidence that four of these men, Joseph Hirko, Rex Shelby, Scott Yeager, and Kevin Howard presented a picture of their company and the revolutionary technology that they claimed that it had. The evidence will show that these men chose to lie when they could have and should have told the truth. Their choices are important, ladies and gentlemen, and that’s because these men were executives at a public company. That means they were supposed to be straight with the public, with the shareholders and investors. That’s because when people invest in a company, they invest not only their money, they also invest their trust in the company and in the executives who run it. These men violated that trust. When people buy stock in a company, they purchase the right to be told the truth, the good, the bad, and the ugly about the business. The public has a right to expect that important things won’t be hidden from them.

Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Lisa Monaco. I’m an assistant U.S. attorney. And with me at the table here are two agents of the F.B.I., Kendall Hopper and Jeff Jenson. Also with me at the table are Ben Campbell and Cliff Stricklin. Together, we have the responsibility to present the evidence in this case; the evidence that we will prove beyond a reasonable doubt proves this case.

DIRECT EXAMINATION QUESTIONS []

Q1: What were you doing on the evening of December 23?

A1: I was doing some holiday shopping?

Q2: Where were you at approximately 7 p.m.?

A2: I was at K-Mart.

Q3: Where specifically is this K-Mart located?

A3: It’s the Farmington Hills store located on Orchard Lake Road just North of 13 Mile Road.

Q4: Can you tell us what happened when you exited the store?

A4: I was pulling my shopping cart to my car in the parking lot and all of the sudden I heard a loud noise of tires squealing. I turned around and a yellow Ford Mustang was coming right at me. It grazed me and completely smashed the shopping cart to pieces. As the car left the parking lot someone yelled “revenge is sweet!”

Q5: Did you recognize the voice?

A5: Yes. It appeared to be Suzy Creeper.

Q6: Do you have any history with Suzy Creeper?

A6: Yes. She is my ex-girlfriend and is actually a convicted aggravated stalker as of this past August. I was the victim and she still won’t leave me the heck alone.

DIRECT EXAMINATION QUESTIONS []

Q1: What were you doing on the evening of December 23?

A1: I was doing some holiday shopping?

Q2: Where were you at approximately 7 p.m.?

A2: I was at K-Mart.

Q3: Where specifically is this K-Mart located?

A3: It’s the Farmington Hills store located on Orchard Lake Road just North of 13 Mile Road.

Q4: Can you tell us what happened when you exited the store?

Q5: Did you recognize the voice?

A5: Yes. It appeared to be Suzy Creeper.

Q6: Do you have any history with Suzy Creeper?

A6: Yes. She is my ex-girlfriend and is actually a convicted aggravated stalker as of this past August. I was the victim and she still won’t leave me the heck alone.

DIRECT EXAMINATION QUESTIONS [] (IF NECESSARY)

Q1: What were you doing on the evening of December 23?

A1: I was doing some holiday shopping?

Q2: Where were you at approximately 7 p.m.?

A2: I was at K-Mart.

Q3: Where specifically is this K-Mart located?

A3: It’s the Farmington Hills store located on Orchard Lake Road just North of 13 Mile Road.

Q4: Can you tell us what happened when you exited the store?

Q5: Did you recognize the voice?

A5: Yes. It appeared to be Suzy Creeper.

Q6: Do you have any history with Suzy Creeper?

A6: Yes. She is my ex-girlfriend and is actually a convicted aggravated stalker as of this past August. I was the victim and she still won’t leave me the heck alone.

CROSS EXAMINATION QUESTIONS []

Q1: Where are you currently employed?

Q2: How long have you been employed there?

Q3: What is your current job title?

Q4: Is writing company checks in your job description?

Q5: Yes or no. In January of this year, you filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy?

Q6: Isn’t it true that you were terminated at your previous place of employment for fraud and embezzlement?

CROSS EXAMINATION QUESTIONS []

Q1: Where are you currently employed?

Q2: How long have you been employed there?

Q3: What is your current job title?

Q4: Is writing company checks in your job description?

Q5: Yes or no. In January of this year, you filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy?

Q6: Isn’t it true that you were terminated at your previous place of employment for fraud and embezzlement?

CROSS EXAMINATION QUESTIONS [] (IF NECESSARY)

Q1: Where are you currently employed?

Q2: How long have you been employed there?

Q3: What is your current job title?

Q4: Is writing company checks in your job description?

Q5: Yes or no. In January of this year, you filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy?

Q6: Isn’t it true that you were terminated at your previous place of employment for fraud and embezzlement?

CLOSING ARGUMENT

My name is Arthur Laffin and I am representing Mane'I al Otaybi, a Saudi national who was 25 years old when he was taken into U.S. custody in Afghanistan. He died at the Guantanamo military prison on June 10, 2006 of a reported suicide. To date, there has been no independent investigation of his death or the others who have died at Guantanamo. We remember these dead prisoners in a special way here in this court today.

The government has asserted that this case is not about Guantanamo. We respectfully and vehemently disagree. In our defense, we have to put forth to this court overwhelming evidence that the US government has engaged in criminal conduct. What is at issue here is what do citizens to when all three branches of government are in violation of divine law, international law, and its own constitution. When habeas corpus rights are denied to persons, when persons are held indefinitely without being charged, when persons are tortured by U.S. personnel in violation of the Geneva Conventions and the Eighth Amendment to the Bill of Rights, we citizens have a right and a duty to petition the government and to seek redress.

You have heard evidence that we wrote a letter to the Supreme Court Justices well in advance of January 11, appealing to them to grant due process for the Guantanamo prisoners – to restore habeas corpus rights, to outlaw the crime and sin of torture, and to order the closing of Guantanamo. To date we have received no response. We went to the Supreme Court on January 11 to appeal in person to the justices, imploring them to do their job to uphold the law and administer justice.

We ask: Where are the judges and the legal professionals when it comes to confronting the criminal acts of our government? Will we be here five years from now? How many more people have to suffer before we end this horror?

This is an historic moment. If justice is to come for the prisoners and Guantanamo, and all secret US torture centers are to be closed, it will happen because judges like you spoke out and people from across the political spectrum took nonviolent action to petition our government to make this a reality.

Judge Gardner, we are part of a long nonviolent tradition of people of faith and conscience, people who have risked their freedom, and in some cases their lives, to bear witness to truth. William Penn stated: "Always put justice above the law." And St. Paul writes: "Love is the fulfillment of the law." As you determine the outcome of this case, we ask you to put justice above the law. We appeal to you to act in the name of justice, in the name of victims, in the name of truth and love, and find us innocent. We invite you Judge Gardner, and Prosecutor Acevedo, and all the court personnel to join with us as we seek to bring about justice for the Guantanamo prisoners. We really need your help and would most welcome your participation.

State v. Baller