[quote author=Mock Captain link=topic=3618.msg160963#msg160963 date=1198915688]
Its like the AMTA Case Committee actually lurks here...I would not be surprised.
-Hicks :gavel:
[/quote]
Hicks:
I'm on the Case Committee and I do more than lurk. Where have you been? No, don't answer that! I know pretty well already.
NARODNIK: Someone who had received an education to use for the benefit
Did anyone notice some of the defendants names in the cases cited in Ash's CV whose defense she worked for? There are numerous references to Quentin Tarantino movies, its pretty funny. Cases such as [i]State of Montana v. Vic Vega[i], [i]United States of America v. Marcellus Wallace[i] and Mister Orange v. State of Utah. I recognize some of the other names too but I don't know where all the names are from.
[quote author=nogle link=topic=3618.msg160980#msg160980 date=1199396635]
Did anyone notice some of the defendants names in the cases cited in Ash's CV whose defense she worked for? There are numerous references to Quentin Tarantino movies, its pretty funny. Cases such as [i]State of Montana v. Vic Vega[i], [i]United States of America v. Marcellus Wallace[i] and Mister Orange v. State of Utah. I recognize some of the other names too but I don't know where all the names are from.
[/quote]
Kill Bill (O-ren Ishii, Elle Driver, Vernita Green, etc), Pulp Fiction (Marcellus Wallace), and I didn't recognise where the others were from. Haha, Ash helped to defend cold killers. :gavel:
"Throw her away and lock up the key."
I know Vince Vega is the name of the character John Travolta played in Pulp Fiction, maybe Vince had a brother named Vic that no one knew about :P
All of my posts are made in a personal capacity not reflecting the opinions of my program.
Vic Vega was a character in Reservoir Dog mane and yes I'm pretty sure he is supposed to be Vincent's brother.
Man I'm good. I've seen Reservoir Dogs once, but I don't remember any of the names of any of the characters. Good catch.
All of my posts are made in a personal capacity not reflecting the opinions of my program.
[quote author=Darl link=topic=3618.msg160953#msg160953 date=1198787596]
Now the questions of guilt, innocence, and residual doubt are merely factors to consider when recommending or determining the defendant's punishment.
[/quote]
Darl- do you mean here that "Alford" makes residual doubt an arguable mitigating factor? Or it is not a mitigating factor but merely something the jury should take into consideration?
It just seems like this new case law seems to contradict itself entirely. Or is it like saying- since we can't ever have complete certainty where Francis got HIV, we will allow this doubt over Campbell's guilt to be taken into consideration?
The defense can justify its residual doubt argument either under the catch-all mitigating factor ("There are substantial grounds to mitigate the defendant's conduct"or under Calambas. Residual doubt is not a full defense -- that is, Campbell cannot introduce doubt regarding her guilt and therefore be set free without any punishment. Instead, the jury should consider any residual doubt introduced by the defense as one of the factors for determining the appropriate sentencing recommendation. The weight of such residual doubt depends, I presume, on the extent of the doubt and the nature of element doubted.
it seems like alot of the residual doubt argument rests on dr. montana's testimony... has anyone tried voir dire dr. montana? it seems like it could be fun--there are some little inaccuracies in the affadavit. :P
has anyone caught that back in october (in the real world) there was a new HIV drug released that created a 4th class of drugs?
in a way i think you could do some damage with a voir dire on this witness.
Anyone tried it? any thoughts?
Why would you voir dire instead of just doing a cross? I don't get it.
[url]www.findjoshua.com[/url]
"The joy is in the journey."
-Frosty Westering
Okay, I'm going to be the stupid n00b and ask what a voir dire is...remember, I'm doing this for Theatre, not Law. xD
Technically a voir dire has two meanings, but only one is relevant in a mock trial setting (the other is the term for the questioning of prospective jury members prior to trial by the attorneys for both sides, and is not used in MT).
A voir dire is essentially a partial cross examination, that takes place during the opposing side's direct examination (that is, before they say "I have no further questions for this witness"
Two strong examples of voir dires that I've seen (and done) are on Kiko Ash and Rubenstein. Kiko Ash still has no advanced training in psychology, sociology, or anthropology, and the argument is that he/she cannot make conclusions that are of a psychological, sociological, or anthropological nature (though he/she can make conclusions based on his/her training and experience as a mitigation specialist and sentencing advocate). The voir dire establishes this fact, and is used in an attempt to keep either the Ethnographic Assessment out, or damaging testimony from the document itself (if the opposing team chooses not to enter it).
As for a voir dire... I'd only recommend doing it if it's proper, that is to lay foundations for an objection... Because objections aren't allowed in a voir dire, many judges are leery about letting them go forward, because it could just be an excuse to cross examine without objection. Asking for a voir dire can be difficult, because not everyone knows what it is. If you get a 1L that never did MT as an undergrad and has not yet taken trial procedure or evidence, they probably are not going to know what a voir dire is, or they might think (incorrectly) that you are asking about the other kind of voir dire - the questions asked to prospective jury members.
I had a judge actually write that on the ballot in a round when I asked for permission to voir dire Rubenstein. "You can't voir dire a witness - that's for jury selection. Save it for cross."
Some judges that are clueless might score you down because they think you're way off base when asking for a voir dire. It's a rather obscure procedure that not many people who haven't taken trial procedure know about, and some of them may have easily forgotten it.
Mostly though, I just use a voir dire if I think it will get me points. It's the kind of thing that if used with the right judge, regardless of whether you are allowed to perform the voir dire, and regardless of whether you win the resulting objection, will earn you points as a crossing attorney if planned and executed well.
Im pretty cynical when it comes to judges....but I think most will know what voir dire is.
It's all about the U.
THEO help us if they don't....
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.
In case you hadn't seen yet--from the AMTA site:
The December case update omitted the case law added on October 31, 2007. A corrected case law document has been posted and the full case download has been corrected.
For programs that updated trial notebooks in December, it is only necessary to replace the case law documents. There are no other changes.
[quote author=darkhorserunner link=topic=3618.msg161054#msg161054 date=1200028834]
it seems like alot of the residual doubt argument rests on dr. montana's testimony... has anyone tried voir dire dr. montana? it seems like it could be fun--there are some little inaccuracies in the affadavit. :P
has anyone caught that back in october (in the real world) there was a new HIV drug released that created a 4th class of drugs?
in a way i think you could do some damage with a voir dire on this witness.
Anyone tried it? any thoughts?
[/quote]
we did it once. it went ok, it needed some improvement on it. we also tried it on kiko ash at a different tournament. if you can do it well, it is an interesting way to throw a wrench at another team. it seems like your failure or success is based on how the witness handles themselves.
i personally like voir dires... since they can be fun, as you said!
"You don’t get up from the table until you’ve seen everyone’s hand"
--
[quote author=UMCane*GWB link=topic=3618.msg161058#msg161058 date=1200043455]
Im pretty cynical when it comes to judges....but I think most will know what voir dire is.
[/quote]
That's what I thought... but then I got that comment. Keep in mind the other pros. round at that tournament, I was allowed to do the voir dire. I figured judges would know what it is, but now I'm not quite so sure.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
