Max/Bax/Finch Call

[pwned1990]

Thoughts?

[Type Cast Expert]

Doesn't rhyme as well as Max/Bax/Lee.
 
Maxwell sets up the conspiracy.
 
Baxamusa provides some indication that JO might have been present at the scene.
 
Finch documents the investigation and the evidence against Owens. 
 
 
Your other options are Lee - and Lee and Finch - in my opinion are pretty interchangable and Stark - I've not yet seen a GREAT Stark and that's definately a character role.  So, I'd say you have Max/Bax/Finch or Max/Bax/Lee all about the same strength.

[pwned1990]

Bax also provide alibi for maxwell

[Mocker78]

Honestly, to have a snow ball chance to actually convict Owens, you would need all five witnesses.  You almost have to call Max, Lee and Finch are interchangeable as was mentioned before, and then your character witness Bax or Stark. 

What did Bax really see? 1. Two people that can't be identified except for the person in the cat burglar suit.  2. A dark colored/black Maserati with purple headlights at the Marina also matching the description of the Malone's stolen car if defense calls him/her.  If called Lee can testify to tool marks and mud (maybe) but without Stark you can't place Owens with the purple lights.     

[pwned1990]

Bax saw the first person arrive at 1000, maxwell printed his ticket at 1002.  He couldnt be in two spots at once.  With finch, you can really show that jb was there and that it was him who hunter saw.  If you can show that it was jb at the marina that night, then you win i think. Or at least make a good case.

[Bovice]

I'm inclined to say Lee is better than Finch when calling Maxwell. A lot of Finch's testimony can come out through Maxwell, there's much more overlap between the two than Maxwell/Lee.

Also I'm a fan of fingerprints. And Milly Bays.

[pwned1990]

Idk..I mean you get alot of like "hard" evidence out of Lee but alot of it can be diminished and what not through cross and other testimony.  Finch can really support maxwell on the stand and verify the maxwell's story. Plus you lose motive with lee

[Bovice]

Idk..I mean you get alot of like "hard" evidence out of Lee but alot of it can be diminished and what not through cross and other testimony.  Finch can really support maxwell on the stand and verify the maxwell's story. Plus you lose motive with lee

Motive isn't an element of the crime.

Also, I find calling Maxwell kind of hurts Finch. We currently call Finch but not Maxwell. Our Finch can dodge some of the painful "Maxwell did it!" questioning by saying, "I agree, that's why we arrested him." If you call Maxwell you force Finch to defend Maxwell too, and it can hurt his scores.

[pwned1990]

I understand where you are coming from on that, but Finch can defend him with the bax call and the movie ticket.  Finch can then say that Jackie and Maxwell were both suspects and that when they found the body they contacted maxwell because the investigation led to the boat and what not.  Finch/Bax call really builds up the credability of maxwell.  If the pros case should revolve around making maxwell credible, not convicting jackie owens.  Bax gets good character points, easy direct, boring cross.  Finch can elaborat on a lot of facts and tie jb to the crime scene efficiently with physical/circumstantial evidence.  The eventual conclusion will be that maxwell is not lying, unless they are just trying just to take down jackie owens for some personal vendetta and the story just happaned to coincide with someone else murdering bennet.  Max/Bax/Finch should swing case for pros an get good points as well. Hooks the closer up and throws def off.

[nogle]

Why don't you just drop your whole case theory for all of the perjuries community to see? Then I'll tell you if I agree or not.

[pwned1990]

Ha that would take too long.  You can get the gist of it from that.  I mean im done for the year anyway. 

[The Gelf]

Why don't you just drop your whole case theory for all of the perjuries community to see? Then I'll tell you if I agree or not.

I have a feeling that I would immensely enjoy reading that. 

[The Gelf]

Also, how on Earth is the Hunter cross boring?  Or are we the only team that utilizes a sombrero?

[Nil Satis Nisi Optimum]

Also, how on Earth is the Hunter cross boring?  Or are we the only team that utilizes a sombrero?

We do that too! We even bring out the tequila sometimes.

[Mockinfordummies]

Also, how on Earth is the Hunter cross boring?  Or are we the only team that utilizes a sombrero?

A sombrero only on the cross.  How do you mean?  Does the witness pull out a sombrero for the cross only, or does the attorney just wear a sombrero while crossing.  (I know what you really mean, but these ideas sound better)

[pwned1990]

Ha sombrero?

[opposingcounsel]

You seem pretty stuck on this lineup... personally, I think calling Maxwell in any lineup is detrimental.  Speaking for my team, one of our absolute best character witnesses started as Maxwell early in the season, and he just didn't score well (he always scores very well so this was a red flag for us).  The Maxwell cross can be pretty brutal, too; I mean, you've got a criminal on the stands and you want a jury to believe him?  Furthermore, we had a very competent judge who is a private defense attorney tell us that he thinks calling Maxwell is a grave error.   

[pwned1990]

Yea, I dont know, dont you kind of need him?  Without the story, its hard to develop anything plus any conversations he had with finch or owens are not allowe.

[Mocker78]

... personally, I think calling Maxwell in any lineup is detrimental.  Speaking for my team, one of our absolute best character witnesses started as Maxwell early in the season, and he just didn't score well (he always scores very well so this was a red flag for us).  The Maxwell cross can be pretty brutal, too; I mean, you've got a criminal on the stands and you want a jury to believe him?  Furthermore, we had a very competent judge who is a private defense attorney tell us that he thinks calling Maxwell is a grave error.   

It is so much easier for the defense to blame Maxwell for the murder if he/she isn't called.  You can't prove the conspiracy.  In the end, the murder happened on Maxwell's boat, with Maxwell's gun, and Maxwell was the one who had the meeting with Bennett.

[arandomguy]

I like calling Maxwell, if you are going to play it effectively. If you have a timid Maxwell, who comes off as a pushover, someone conned into helping the sinister Jackie Owens commit a murder without fully understanding what he was doing, then I think Maxwell is indeed a waste of a witness. If you're going to have what I would consider a much more believable Maxwell, someone who knows what he did, and is pissed only that he got caught, then you might be able to use Maxwell in an effective and believable way.

[pwned1990]

I agree....Maxwell has to be pissed that they got caught.  If pros argues that maxwell had no motive to kill owens, then we get this timid humble perso all of a sudden helping commit murder and then lying to the police for like a month.

[bleedgreen]

finch, lee, and baxamusa has worked for us. you don't need maxwell if you're blaming him as the prosecution

[Eric Albertson]

Lee is a far better choice than Finch. With Lee, Bax, and Max you can tell an almost perfect story of what happened that night, place JB there via Bax and Lee, and put Owen's car there as well.

[opposingcounsel]

It is so much easier for the defense to blame Maxwell for the murder if he/she isn't called.  You can't prove the conspiracy.  In the end, the murder happened on Maxwell's boat, with Maxwell's gun, and Maxwell was the one who had the meeting with Bennett.

Conspiracy can be shown through Finch.  My team has done this very effectively.  I stand firmly behind a Finch, Lee, Bax lineup.

[pwned1990]

You should not be able to show conspiracy through finch because conversations between Finch/maxwell are not allowed if you dont call maxwell as far as i know

[opposingcounsel]

Finch can absolutely discuss his perceptions as to how the murder was carried out.  You don't need explicit testimony to show that Finch believed there was a conspiracy.   

[pwned1990]

ahh ic ic

[Justin Pues]

we did maxwell, lee, then finch.  it worked out interesting, cause we used the you will never prove it as a part of our theme.  plus no one over objected, when i as finch would say jackie owens knew bennett was dead before we ever had a body, and the defense so far never attacked statement ever.

[hehehoho]

So do the case changes, more specifically to Stark, make this call not as strong anymore? Does Stark now outweigh any of these witnesses and if so why? I don't see a coherent case with Stark even with the new evidence.

[knight_in_shining_armor]

So do the case changes, more specifically to Stark, make this call not as strong anymore? Does Stark now outweigh any of these witnesses and if so why? I don't see a coherent case with Stark even with the new evidence.

I strongly disagree, but will save full thoughts on call orders until after my team is done with competing

[mocksluzer]

I've never thought this lineup was the most effective. I don't understand calling Bax when you can get essentially the same information from somewhere else, and not have to deal with the CX outlining how it was pitch black that night and Bax didn't really see anything. I've always thought Stark was a much stronger candidate in the context of a murder trial. If you can paint the Defendant as very desperate in the eyes of the jury, who needs physical evidence? (On a side note, taken to the extreme you have the argument from a judge who gave our 19-rank defense attorney a 6 on her closing because she focused too much on "reasonable doubt" which apparently doesn't have a place in a murder trial...) Anyway, if there's been something that makes Stark even stronger, I simply don't understand calling Bax over Stark unless you have a killer Bax.

[Nur Rauch]

(On a side note, taken to the extreme you have the argument from a judge who gave our 19-rank defense attorney a 6 on her closing because she focused too much on "reasonable doubt" which apparently doesn't have a place in a murder trial...)

I think that can be a legitimate criticism (not saying anything about your team mate, but rather the theoretical strategy of putting a lot of emphasis on reasonable doubt). When I put myself in the position of a juror who hasn't done mock trial or gone to law school, I don't want to hear about how the defendant is probably guilty but the prosecution can't prove it so nana booboo. I want a complete, coherent, and believable explanation for how the defendant is innocent. I want a story of innocence, a counterpart to the prosecution's story of guilt. It's not the way jurors are supposed to think, and in fact they're often instructed on that point, but they think that way anyway, so you gotta cater your defense to that typical want when possible.

[Justin Pues]

I think that can be a legitimate criticism (not saying anything about your team mate, but rather the theoretical strategy of putting a lot of emphasis on reasonable doubt). When I put myself in the position of a juror who hasn't done mock trial or gone to law school, I don't want to hear about how the defendant is probably guilty but the prosecution can't prove it so nana booboo. I want a complete, coherent, and believable explanation for how the defendant is innocent. I want a story of innocence, a counterpart to the prosecution's story of guilt. It's not the way jurors are supposed to think, and in fact they're often instructed on that point, but they think that way anyway, so you gotta cater your defense to that typical want when possible.

I agree completely.  Thats what happened to us too.  We focused on reasonable doubt, and not the story of Jackie Owens, which is what we used to do, but changed it.  Jurors are not supposed to search for reasonable doubt either, which is the approach that i have seen a lot.  They are supposed to search for the truth.

[Nur Rauch]

I think the issue is that people get carried away with the "as defense we don't have to prove anything" aspect of the burden of proof, which while technically true is neither interesting nor persuasive for many juries. In this mock trial case the defense has been gifted with three colorful witnesses of their choosing, so making at least a half-way decent story isn't very hard, either.

[99problems]

So do the case changes, more specifically to Stark, make this call not as strong anymore? Does Stark now outweigh any of these witnesses and if so why? I don't see a coherent case with Stark even with the new evidence.

i love stark. i think hes the most interesting witness on the prosecution and makes owens seem like hes gone bat-shit crazy with gambling. he asked him for a gun and said he doesnt have time to bother with getting a license or anything? thats a bit ridiculous. he really is as good as dead. 

the thing i dont like about bax is that most people play him as a really annoying nerd and he just doesnt add much to the case other than protecting maxwell's alibi. the maserati doesnt link owens to anything unless you can prove owens had xenon headlights at one time or another which i suppose you can try to do with lee but its usually unsuccessful in my opinion.

[pwned1990]

All you need from Baxamusa is the assurance of an alibi for Maxwell.  The prosecution can show that Maxwell had a motive to want Bennet dead, and that Bennet died on June 16th after 10.  IF this is shown then the jury will have to conclude that either Maxwell is bat shit crazy for sending himself to jail for no reason or that his story is true.