QUINNIPIAC
UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF LAW
Annual Trial Advocacy Competition
October 28th - October 30th, 2011 in Hamden & New Haven, Connecticut
Deadline for Emailed Submission of Questions/Clarifications is TBD
Email Questions & Clarifications to:
Q: A team has asked whether a physical cobblestone will be provided along with the book and screwdriver.
A: Yes; a physical cobblestone will be provided along with the book and screwdriver. The lack of a picture of the stone in the report is intentional.
Q: A team has asked me to clarify a portion of the rules relating to witnesses. The line in question reads “The witness must admit, if questioned, to fabricating a statement of material fact that is not in the file.” The team asked whether “file” refers to only the individual’s statement or the entire fact pattern.
A: Witnesses may only testify to facts of which they have personal knowledge, for example their own testimony, reports written or reviewed by them, or physical evidence collected or handled by them.
Q: A team has asked me to clarify the portion of the rules relating to witnesses and “reasonable assumptions” specifically in relation to the “background and personality” referred to on page 25.
A: The witnesses may make reasonable assumptions and inferences regarding their own background. For example, Officer Stark can testify to having attended the police academy, or Hall or Wilde, having attended law school, can reasonably be assumed to have attended an undergraduate institution. They may not, however, go into specifics. Personality and character traits of the witnesses may also be inferred from the facts presented, however they, too, must remain within the bounds of reason.
Q: A team has asked whether, in response to impeachment, the response “I was never asked that question [at the preliminary hearing]” is proper.
A: That answer is proper; however bear in mind that if pressed on the issue and the question does not reflect material in the deposition the witness will have to answer “I don’t know” or “I don’t recall.”
Q: A team has asked whether parties will have an opportunity to confer prior to the start of a competition round for the purposes of pre-marking exhibits.
A: Yes, teams will have an opportunity to confer prior to the beginning of trial on whatever grounds they feel are appropriate, however a failure to come to a consensus, including pre-marking exhibits, will not be counted against either party.
Q: A team has asked whether the occurrence of pronouns such as “he”, “she”, or “they” were intentionally interchanged throughout the fact pattern with the intention of making the witness roles gender-neutral or if arguments can be made regarding the pronouns.
A: The intent was to make the fact pattern as gender-neutral as possible, and as such no arguments may be made regarding the gender of witnesses or other involved parties. For the purposes of trial the gender of the witnesses shall be considered to be the gender of the person portraying them.
Q: A team has asked if we are to assume that the photographs of the vehicle are all of the same vehicle, and whether they are of the vehicle referred to in the police reports.
A: Yes, for the purposes of this fact pattern the photographs are of the same vehicle, and no argument may be made regarding any differences which may appear in the photos, specifically regarding the color. Yes, this is the vehicle referred to in both reports.
Q: A team has asked if the date of July 12, 2011 on the Internal Affairs report is accurate.
A: No, the date of July 12, 2011 was a transcription error, as the report refers to events that occur after that date. The proper date for the report is July 17, 2011.
Q: A team has asked whether witnesses will be constructively or actually sequestered during the course of trial.
A: As is standard procedure for these types of competitions, any sequestration will be constructive in nature.
Q: A team has asked when the preliminary hearing was held.
A: It took some time to get on the docket, but once it is before a judge justice works swiftly in Quinnipiac. The preliminary hearing was held just a few days ago on October 3, 2011. As interested parties, you were all just fortunate enough to get advanced copies of the testimony.
Q: A team has asked if the discrepancy in the description of the screwdriver on pages 58 and 61 was intentional.
A: It was unintentional; a corrected copy of the lab report is attached to the email along with these answers.
Q: A team has asked when Wilde went to law school, and whether Wilde and Hall would have been classmates.
A: While Wilde’s exact enrollment dates are unknown, it can be safely assumed that Wilde and Hall were not classmates, but would have been aware of one another.
Q: A team has asked if I can elaborate on Officer Stark’s education, training, and career path.
A: No.
Q: A team has asked whether the jury instructions will be read prior to or after closing arguments.
A: The jury instructions will be constructively read to the jury after closing arguments and prior to deliberations.
There were several questions about the jury instructions, specifically regarding Count I - Robbery in the First Degree. Unfortunately upon reviewing the instructions it became apparent to me that although the indictment and substantive portion of the fact pattern was correct as of publication, an older version of the jury instructions was included. As such, an updated, correct, version of the jury instructions will be released to the teams. This new version should answer your questions, and any others that may be out there, however below are the questions that I received.
Q: A team has asked whether the reference to “building” in the conclusion to Count I on page 116 is correct.
A: No, the word “building” in the conclusion to Count I should be replaced with “dwelling”.
Q: A team has asked whether they may proceed under any of the three offenses in the burglary statute, despite there only being one charge laid out in the jury instructions.
A: Yes, you may proceed under any of the three statutory offenses.
Q: A team has asked about the lack of an instruction on the “at night” element of the burglary charge.
A: This was an oversight on my part. The updated jury instructions will include instructions on this element.
Q: A team has asked whether the vehicle depicted in the photographs is the vehicle described in the reports, and if so whether the lighting and fence that appear in the photograph are arguable.
A: Yes, this is the same vehicle. The pictures were taken after the vehicle was transported from the scene to the police impound for evidence processing, the fence in the photograph is the one that surrounds the impound lot.
Q: A team has asked whether the color difference between the vehicle in the picture (light) and the report (dark) is arguable.
A: No. The difference between the color in the report and the photographs is not arguable.
Q: A team has asked whether motions in limine, if written are limited to one page each or if both motions must be included on one page.
A: There is no requirement of written motions, however if motions are written they are limited to one written page each.
Q: A team has asked whether, if written motions are submitted, oral arguments are precluded.
A: Pursuant to the rules regarding motions as laid on page 23 of the fact pattern, each team will have a total of five minutes to present and argue its motion(s). If written motions are prepared and it takes less than five minutes to hand them to the court, teams may present and argue their motions in that remaining time.
Q: A team has asked whether the defendant can testify as to whether he/she was present at the shelter on the night in question as indicated by Morgan Doyle’s testimony.
A: The defendant does not have specific knowledge of Doyle’s statements. It is, however, a reasonable inference and the defendant, if called, may testify, if he remembers, that he was present at the shelter on the night in question.
Q: A team has asked if there is an inconsistency, intentional or otherwise, between the map on page 44 and the relating statements in the police report on pages 39-40 and the victim’s statement on page 47.
A: The map is consistent with both the report and statement.
Q: A team has asked if Jamie Buckley has been given an opportunity to review the lab reports prepared for this case.
A: Yes, prior to his testimony at the preliminary hearing, Mr. Buckley reviewed the reports.
Q: A team has asked whether, if an opposing team choses to read portions of Officer Wright’s police report, an objection may be made under Crawford.
A: A team may make any and all objections they may feel are appropriate, however the ultimate ruling will be left to the presiding judge of any given round.
Q: A team has asked when the competitors will be receiving the revised jury instructions which I promised last in last week’s email.
A: The revised jury instructions are attached to this email, I apologize for the delay.
Q: A team has asked if stipulation 3 on page 27 prevents a team from arguing improper chain of custody as it relates to the physical evidence in this case.
A: Yes.
Q: A team has asked if, pursuant to stipulation 4 on page 27 the physical screwdriver provided at trial will be sharpened.
A: For safety, the screwdrivers will be constructively sharpened.
Q: A team has asked if the testimony of Officer Stark on page 76 is intentionally inconsistent with Stark’s report on page 39, specifically in regards to the physical layout of the alleyway and buildings at the break-in scene.
A: Any inconsistencies between the report and the testimony are ripe grounds for cross, however Officer Stark may simply have been mistaken in his initial report.
Q: A team has asked if, when a team intends to offer Dr. Ellsworth’s testimony into evidence, must they list Ellsworth on the list of witnesses to be published to opposing counsel.
A: No. As Dr. Ellsworth is not a witness who may be called to the stand, a team does not have to disclose their intent to use his preliminary hearing testimony at the time when they disclose the witnesses they intend to call.