General Mock Trial

Not again! Not again! NOT THE SHHHEEAARRRSS! Bad wookie.

It is particularly funny how the one fact that is always (from what I've seen) left out in competitions is the fact that you don't draw blood out into a syringe when you're injecting drugs. blood is almost always drawn via needle for purposes of tests and transfusions. In the case of the shadowy BC, nothing other than Bobbi's knowing his/her blood was infected, and knowing that CPS is on their way over, would explain why the syringe would contain a substantial amount of blood in the first place.

p.s. though there is the concept of blood washback when injecting drugs, especially when the amount of blood is not specified, let the other side argue and add to what is an already messy situation.

It is particularly funny how the one fact that is always (from what I've seen) left out in competitions is the fact that you don't draw blood out into a syringe when you're injecting drugs.

though there is the concept of blood washback when injecting drugs,

That's not just a concept. I don't think it matters in the end, though. BC admitted to several individuals to preparing to inject drugs, and Montana says there was backwash blood in the stick.

It is particularly funny how the one fact that is always (from what I've seen) left out in competitions is the fact that you don't draw blood out into a syringe when you're injecting drugs.

The presence of blood in the needle doesn't mean Bobbi drew it.  When you first stick the needle in the vein (before you actually inject), blood enters the needle.  Thus, if you don't finish your hit, as Bobbbi didn't, there would still be blood in the needle.

It is particularly funny how the one fact that is always (from what I've seen) left out in competitions is the fact that you don't draw blood out into a syringe when you're injecting drugs. blood is almost always drawn via needle for purposes of tests and transfusions. In the case of the shadowy BC, nothing other than Bobbi's knowing his/her blood was infected, and knowing that CPS is on their way over, would explain why the syringe would contain a substantial amount of blood in the first place.

actually most drug addicts will draw blood first into the needle before the injection to ensure they are not injecting an air bubble that could be fatal. ( the normal hospital process you would depress the plunger until fluid sprays from the needle-- drug addicts do not want to waste a single drop thus the drawback and inject method )

actually most drug addicts will draw blood first into the needle before the injection to ensure they are not injecting an air bubble that could be fatal. ( the normal hospital process you would depress the plunger until fluid sprays from the needle-- drug addicts do not want to waste a single drop thus the drawback and inject method )

firsthand knowledge? hahaha jk..

The amount of blood in the needle was irrelevant to BC's guilt.  The code required her to know from an HIV test that she had HIV.  The prosecution plea deal stated what facts they were prepared to prove and they were not prepared to prove that BC ever had a HIV test or in any other way knew or suspected she was HIV+.

This aspect of the case was Writer's Choice.  Dritz for example could have testified that when he was her probation officer she had an HIV test and it was positive and he discussed the significance with BC.  Because this was supposed to be a Sentencing Only case where the defendant had plead guilty, there was no reason to write a case where she was Not Guilty. Maybe the writers were on drugs.

What would have been great would have been for a team to make a Motion to Strike the pleas deal.  A motion to strike is allowed. The grounds could have been that they promised her a jury sentencing trial and they breached the "contract" when they barred her from the court room.  Since the prosecution breached the plea deal, BC could move to strike the deal. I am not saying it would have worked -- just that it would have been great to some some team gutsy enough to do it.

A motion to strike testimony is allowed.  A motion to strike the plea?  Not so much.  You obviously have very little familiarity with AMTA and a lot of contempt borne of years of "real world" experience.  Enjoy that.

And it was an Alford plea. The defendant didn't actually admit guilt.

Yeah Mike I'm not sure it's irrelevant to consider in sentencing. Early on, we argued that the blood in the needle and the transmission for Francis was pre-meditated (in other words: He knowingly drew HIV+ blood into the syringe and depressed the syringe plunder into DF). We got some relevance objections and we'd just clarify that these elements go to show malice. More often than not, judges wouldn't even allow for argument.

And you don't "strike" a guilty plea anyway.  Striking is removing something from the record.  If you want to get rid of a guilty plea you would move to withdraw your plea or move to vacate the conviction or something.

As I stated else where, the teams that considered a Motion to Strike the plea deal decided not to do it. 

AMTA, however, says that the only motion allowed is a Motion to Strike.  It does not protect any of the prosecution's evidence.  Under MRE Rule 103 (a)(2) a defense team could make motion to strike the plea bargain as part of the trial record and that would stop the Sentencing Trial.

If a team had taken that approach, they would have been lodging an objection to the violation of BC's constitutional rights.  Just because something could have been done and would have been very interesting does not mean that it had to be done.  The teams that realized that it could have been done, however, learned a lot more than the teams who lacked the insight to contemplate the possibility.  The old version of Auntie Mame was on TV the other day and she made a remark that reminded of many people in AMTA this year --  something about fools "from Darien with braces on the brains."  You'd think we'd make some progress in 50 years.  (I add the last comment in order to get more karma demerits as Hova is winning the karma demerit race and I need to catch up)

It's a contest, huh?

Bad mouth a Republican, Mike. Works like a charm.

I just trying to gather as many demerits as possible before I leave.  I can say lots of negative things about Dems too.  My real target: low standards.

It's interesting to see how easily mockers are distracted by the fluff and ignore the substance.