I know that many have not yet accessed this year's case, but for those who have, how do you think this year's case compares to past cases? Do the differences make it better or worse in your view?
Better
Worse
I know that many have not yet accessed this year's case, but for those who have, how do you think this year's case compares to past cases? Do the differences make it better or worse in your view?
Better. If only because the plaintiffs sent their signed waiver in on April 20th, so as the defense I can claim they were baked as all hell. 420 smoke it for liberty.
The only thing to listen to when working on your case:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8u6EodZseg
I'm a huge fan of this case.
I only saw the J.J. Thompson case from that year's final round DVD. It seemed heavily P-skewed, as the defense's alternate theory advanced by Dr. Brown (the deceased seized, and then was run over by a car, but not my client's car) just was ridiculous. The burdens seemed fairly simple, and the fact pattern pretty pedestrian.
I only saw the Drew Walton case from THAT year's final round DVD. I thought it was very interesting. The witnesses were a lot of fun, the truth of what happened was pleasantly ambiguous, and I liked the fact that they were exploring slander.
I don't know much about the Owens case. I never saw an Owens round. All I know is what I've read on Perjuries.
I liked the HappyLand case. The two alternate plaintiff theories kept defenses on their toes, and there were enough little things to twist in the defense's favor that every round was exciting. Frost was a great character, and the fact that almost every character could be called by both sides made alternate scripts a must. The case law battles were also interesting.
I did NOT like the Dawson case. Prosecution could almost never meet its burden, and Defense could almost never be interesting. Every round came down to the same thing--"He drank too much and drove too fast" versus "This is a mistake, not a murder." You saw run-of-the-mill reasonable doubt arguments for three minutes or more of every defense closing and opening. Some of the witnesses (D Lyons, anyone?) were useless. Forcing Norton was unfortunate. The case was obviously overcharged. The prosecutorial bias was KIND of interesting, but not enough was done to make it a central focus of the fact pattern (we needed evidence that Ms. Sullivan might have directly tampered with some results).
This case seems to have it all. All of the witnesses say something important, and all of the witnesses have more than enough against them for the cross-examiner to score a 10 a hundred times over. The case law gets into the nitty-gritty when it comes to defining recklessness, negligence and affirmative defenses. Addressing something as risky as deep-sea diving has opened me up to a whole new area of study I wouldn't have thought of but for this case. I don't know how the PPPDDD call order will play out, but I'm hopeful. My friends and family agree that this is the most balanced and nuanced fact pattern they've heard of yet in college mock trial.
The Owens case was my first case was very fun. I can't remember how well balanced it was but it had all the elements of a "sexy" case. Murder, CEO's of high-priced companies, all that kind of stuff. It also had compelling witnesses from all different levels, not just experts and executives, also cops, mechanics and salesmen.
As for this case, so far I think it is an excellent case, especially for people new to mock trial, because of the lack of swing witnesses. The case law seems to have expanded nicely and lots of it seems to have direct uses. There are enough expert style witnesses that you can really up the credibility of your lineup as well.
E -S- M
I'm not a fan of this case. First of all, I hate side-constrained witnesses. I think that it is more interesting when you see all sorts of different combinations of witnesses. Especially at the end of the season. I'm going to get sick of seeing the same witness calls every time. Not only that but this case is full of document review experts. I can't stand document review experts because they don't actually do anything. And they always selectively read information. Like the one guy who has read 2 affidavits, and 3 other documents. Why didn't he read everything else? I think that it would have been more interesting if they had found the body but there was a question about how Lee had died and there were different experts who had actually done tests.
I agree from a veteran's standpoint that side-constrained witnesses is a bit repetitive. Not to mention guaranteed calls on both sides is kind of dangerous in other ways, but as I said before its very easy for people new to mock trial to understand the set up without having to learn heavy tactical witness stealing and denying.
I like that they're JUST reports and not reports AND affidavits, but I agree that it is always strange the consultants don't review EVERYTHING.
E -S- M
I feel like it's difficult to evaluate at this point. I mean, on a first, cursory reading it seems like a cool case with interesting facts and legal issues; however, I don't think we will be able to tell whether or not the case is a good case until we see it tried a few times. For instance, last year I thought the Dawson case was going to be awesome because of the DA being involved and what not, but that turned out to be a small thing that not many teams could use effectively and the case was pretty lame. Likewise, two years ago I was skeptical of Davis v. Happyland, but ended up liking it once I saw it several times and learned to zone out while Andy Davis was crying.
I agree that, like any case, we're going to have to see it at competition to get a strong feel for how good (and particularly how balanced) this case is.
That being said, I really like this case. I think the facts are interesting, I think having multiple defense options is always fun, and I love that the affirmative defense is not a balancing test (instead simply requiring that you prove recklessness of the deceased).
Those things being said, I think the witnesses are weak this year. Many of the witnesses (on both sides) read like they're being called for the other side. Others just seem odd, like experts who know nothing about diving making overt claims about what Rodgers should or should not have done. I also think crosses are going to be a BIG method of gathering evidence.
Agreed. Often times your "scene" witnesses are characters with endless possibility - a bartender who saw the fight, a janitor taking out the trash, (insert random blue collar character). However, the drama in this case unfolded more than 50 yards under water. Everyone on the dive was supposed to be advanced in diving, which happens to be a very dangerous activity. That means that every "scene" witness, with MAYBE the exception of Frankie Fernandez, needs to have credibility. Rogers, Hathaway, and even Duncan need to maintain some merit because any of their actions can screw the defendant as a whole. Unfortunately, the experts in this case may lend themselves to more real character than the scene witnesses or neptune employees. Don't be suprised if you see some straight-laced Rogers or Hathaways with some eccentric, mad-scientist type experts to break the monotany in the witness lineup.Originally Posted by MockAroundTheClock
That said, factually this case should be strong and I anticipate it will be balanced. But I want my crazy witnesses back!
Really like the case as a whole.
However I hate what they did with Angel Duncan. Why did they feel it was necessary to put so many terrible defense facts into a defense witness when he doesn't even give you that much (has some good stuff for sure)? Feels like defense only has 4 witnesses to pick from, not 5.
Also not a fan of the math in this case.
Other than that I really like the case.
Our team was just talking about this today. Certainly there must be something good(?) in his affidavit because of the amount of bad that AMTA added but as far as I can see the only thing he adds is that he kinda thinks that he remembers putting the 1200 Backup tank in Lee Allen's pile.
hah, I was getting all excited to call Frankie Fernandez until I got to the "Andy Allen threatened to kill me if I didn't testify" part. That was one of the more random surprises I've seen in an affidavit.
Haha it wasn't kill, it was sue.
E -S- M
You and me both.
Mock Trial with J. Reinhold! Mock Trial! Mock Trial with J. Reinhold!
ROFL. Still...I remember that exact feeling of thinking I would call Frankie...until those last two lines, then you're just like..OOOOH. K.
Hey, Frankie made it clear that Andy didn't want Frankie to lie, just to tell the truth......and to make sure that truth is good enough to win a verdict and a large sum of money. The point is that Andy Allen clearly used the word TRUTH, dammit.
Apparently Andy thinks we CAN handle the truth.
E -S- M
The (per)jury's in guys, Neptune is our clear winner.
Ew3YJ.jpg
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
