2018 Mock Trial Finals

[Music] all right Superior Court of the state of California County of Monterey Park and 15 is now in session the Honorable Judge Farrell is now resigning thank you see you didn't come to order thank you very much good afternoon to everyone and thank you and a special welcome let's see Carmel right and Palma right and congratulations to both of you I know it's not easy to get to this level you've been working at it since I guess Wednesday without a whole lot of further ado we're gonna get started here in a moment I just my name is Robert O'Farrell normally I have a nice plate down here with my name on it but I was here working on Wednesday I'm retired from this court but come in occasionally at work and they took my nameplate and locked it up so you just in a way it's beneficial because if I misstep on any my ruling is today you'll probably forget very quickly Who I am let's get started then and I'll call formally the case of people versus Davidson are both sides are ready yes your honor yes your honor all right then I know we're gonna have a defense pretrial motion first but I wonder if you'd like to start the parties I'd like to start by introducing all of your members yes your good afternoon your honor my name is Myles prekow ski for the people good afternoon your honor my name is Becca goring for the people good afternoon your honor my name is Alex Poletti for the people good afternoon your honor I'm Morgan bothering good afternoon your honor I'm Adrian Carroll good afternoon your honor I'm Hayden Rodriguez good afternoon your honor I'm Devin Morrison good afternoon your honor my name is Jacob minovsky and I'll be serving as the clerk for today's trial I'll be giving visual time signals of two minutes one minute 30 seconds and a visual and verbal stuff thank you thank you I'd also like to introduce our coaches mr. Ricciardi yes your honor good afternoon your honor my name is Ruth Barnett ba are any ett on we have to be defended Casey Davidson today I will be presenting the defense's pretrial motion at this time may my fellow attorneys please introduce themselves good afternoon my name is Marco Pezzini t ZZ I and I and today I will be presenting the defense's opening statement as well as conducting direct examination of Fabian Moreno and the cross-examination of Morgan Bonner good afternoon your honor my name is Patrick Reilly Bri le Y on behalf of my client Casey Davidson today I'll be conducting the direct examination of mr. Avery Williams and dr. Tory me as well as the cross-examination of mr. Haden Rodriguez and dr. thibaux davon Morrison good afternoon your honor my name is Jacob Oh Tony OTT oh and II on behalf of my client Casey Davidson today I will be presenting the defense's closing arguments and conducting the direct examination of Casey Davidson and cross-examination of detective Adrian Carol Merrill witnesses please introduce themselves good afternoon your honor my name is Nathan da dee dee dee and today I'm baby Moreno good afternoon your honor my name is Michael Perez he erz again Avery woods good afternoon your honor my name is Wade rien de riaa and today finally the afternoon your honor my name is Reno Ditullio di t you ll IO this afternoon I'm Casey Davidson at this time we are veiled introduce himself good afternoon your honor my name is Alex Thomas at this time thank you very much all right if there's nothing further then to take up at this time RZ there's a defense ready to make your argument yes your honor I begin your honor good afternoon your honor once again my name is Tariq Burnett today the defense's pretrial motion will argue that the acquisition of the GPS location information for mr. Casey Davidson's personal car is a violation of the Fourth Amendment's protections against searches and seizures in addition to this is the holding of the defense that the third party doctrine the United States the legal theory which states that people who voluntarily give over information to third party companies therefore do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy does not apply here today because the defendant Casey Davidson did not give over his information voluntarily it has a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding modern technology that society should deem acceptable your honor today's digital devices that people possess contains more information than they know about the 2014 Supreme Court case Reilly versus California bears a striking resemblance to the case at bar in that case the Court determined that information on these devices can expose the government far more than the most extensive search of a house as these devices create a digital record of people's lives Your Honor the prosecution seeks the Jeep seeks to commandeer the GPS location data for mr. Casey Davis's person phone without a warrant the only justification for the seizure is a court order pursuant to the stored Communications Act obtained by Detective Adrienne Carol Reilly further steps and privacy related matters are waiting a search be required or let me just ask a question couldn't the police have just done it in the old-fashioned way and trail them it wouldn't it be the same pretty much the same type of potential privacy invasion well your honor if I believe that is the that is this case where the United States Supreme Court case the United States vs knots in which the police followed a suspect through on public highways thoroughfares and roads and the Court determined in that case that the police officer could have received the same amount of information if he had just fallen unliked in that case the case at bar with mr. Casey Davidson with the information that detective Carroll received that information shows where he's been on private property and as well as public roads thank you continue on yes please your honor due to the copious amount of information that is stored within it it is reasonable that this search should require warm otherwise it constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment your honor the prosecution will argue that mr. Davidson had no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding his own personal GPS location information we can determine if mr. Davidson had an actual expectation of privacy based on the holding in the 1967 Supreme Court case caspere's to the United States in that case justice Harlan stated that a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy if they make - with following criteria one that expectation is subjected to that expectation to be reasonable to society your honor mr. Davidson meets both of these criteria that is it and therefore has a reasonable expectation of privacy as it is the data from his own personal car the similar to the police officer and cats officer Carroll did not receive a detective care of excuse me did not receive a warrant to seize this information only the court ruled it as a search in Katz the 2015 case in real application for criminal investigations needed for for telephone information needed for a criminal investigation concerns the government trying to access petitioners historical sell-side information which includes the physical locations of the cell tower and the certain sector on the top of the tower that the phone is connected to the judge in that case denied the court order through this information holding that this request falls outside of the third party doctrine now my honor while this case is not binding its relevance is important today to show that similar to the consumers in that case mr. Davidson had a reasonable expectation of privacy as it is the data from his own personal car your honor based on the info of that information that has been provided from the courts today mr. Davidson's reasonable expectation of privacy regarding the GPS location information of his own personal car is legitimate and the act acquisition of said data constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment thus the defense respectfully ask that you find the data inadmissible court today thank you people yes your honor I'll also be using exhibit J during my argument would you like me to pass up a copy that's all right thank you quickly may it please the court the people requests that you deny the defense's motion to suppress the GPS evidence obtained in today's case on the grounds that that information was obtained pursuant to the stored Communications Act which authorizes the disclosure of such information and because the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the information that was being sought during the course of the Alex Thompson homicide investigation the police received a tip that placed the defendants vehicle in the vicinity of mr. Thompson's home on several dates leading up to his murder pursuant to the stored Communications Act the third-party service provider of such GPS coordinates turned over records that did confirm the defendants vehicle was in fact outside of the victim's home on several days leading up to his death those records are the subject of the defense's motion to suppress in today's case on to the stored Communications Act the third-party service providers of remote computing services are required to turn over information that reveals the defendants location only when it is reasonable to believe that those records are relevant and material for an ongoing criminal investigation Your Honor in today's case there's simply no doubt that the information obtained met that standard the crux of the defendants argument is that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information being sought and that a search warrant was required in order to secure the release of such information Your Honor the defendant is wrong on both of those counts first the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy and the information being sought this is because he voluntarily transmitted this information to a third party and by doing so he assumed the risk that any of information could be turned over to the authorities the third-party doctrine is outlined in the cases of Smith female and as well as the case of United States v Miller in both of those cases 100% of the information was being held in the possession of a third party this this case seems our case that is seems factually very similar to the situation of US vs. Jones could you distinguish them absolutely your honor and that's a compelling point in Jones the authorities exceeded the scope of a warrant that was placed and they trespassed on the defendants vehicle here the defense there was no trespass in today's case and the defendant was voluntarily transmitting his information to a third party service provider map receipt yes please in the cases of Miller and Smith the court reasoned that the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy and the information being sought because they voluntarily transmitted the information to a third party and by doing so they assumed the risk that that information could be turned over to the authorities however even more recently the federal circuit courts in our close library in the third fourth fifth and eleventh districts have all held that the disclosure of sell site location information is not protected under the Fourth Amendment the same is true here the defendant was voluntarily transmitting his information to a GPS service provider and the defendant never had direct control over the records that were being obtained at no point in this entire criminal investigation did the authorities ever cease this information directly from the defendants vehicle a simply put he had no interest in the records that were being sought however even if you do find that the defendant did have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information being sought all of that information places a defendant upon a public thoroughfare there a public road in the case of Knotts the United States the court held that any information placing the defendant on a public thoroughfare is not protected under the Fourth Amendment because that same information could be observed via visual surveillance the same is true here in exhibit J all of the information we see on the 12 locations that places the defendant is placing him on public thoroughfares there public roads none of the information we have places a defendant in a traditionally protected area such as his garage or his home if the defendant was in a traditionally protected area he would have a reasonable expectation of privacy however once he enters a public thoroughfare his reasonable expectation of privacy is compromised if not completely diminished your honor because the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the information that was being sought in today's case and because the information was obtained pursuant to the stored Communications Act we request that you deny the defense's nabob any rebuttal yes your honor may begin your honor please your honor a salient argument in opposing counsels statement is that mr. Dixon voluntarily conveyed his GPS location information with the third party company in order to advance his argument he utilized the Supreme Court cases from Smith versus Maryland and the United States versus Miller but in those cases the defendants in both cases actually voluntarily conveyed information in case us versus Miller the defendant knowingly gave over bank slips deposits to the bank these are not these are not private communications these are negotiable instruments used in business transactions whereas in Smith versus Maryland the defendant knowingly dialed in those numbers into the phone your honor far from being a formalistic rule the third party doctrine is just simply one factor in the overall analysis for a reasonable expectation of privacy for someone a factor that can be overcome when highly sensitive information is that state such as it is today that is why your honor the defense respectfully employs you they find the data inadmissible in court today thank you the people have a rebuttal yes your honor may I proceed I'd like to start by addressing an issue that was very prominent in opposing counsels principled argument and that was the issue of a voluntary transmission it's the people's reading that the defendant needs to have some sort of receipts or something that tells him that he knows he's voluntarily transmitting this information however Your Honor that's simply not reasonable it's not reasonable to assume that whenever mr. Davidson gets to his car he thinks that this never-ending amount of GPS information is being stored locally it has to come from somewhere and it has to be stored somewhere for that reason the defense there for that reason that the defendant has no reasonable expectation of privacy and the information because he's voluntarily transmitting it to a third party and that's being stored I'd also like to address the case that opposing counsel cited and then that's Riley V California that case is distinguishable on a few levels there the information was obtained subsequent to an arrest and the information seized was from a cellphone cellphone is highly more intrusive than the mere GPS coordinates that we're using in today's case a cellphone in that case was obtaining videos text messages phone calls and that information connected him to a series of robberies that have occurred in the recent past here all we're using is the mere GPS coordinates that places the defendants vehicle outside of the victim's home Your Honor I'd also like to highlight the case of Knotts for United States it's the people's reading that the defense believes that there was no visual surveillance in today's case therefore mr. Davidson has no reasonable expectation or has a reasonable expectation of privacy while on public thoroughfares your honor the information in today's case was visually surveyed Morgan Banamine a witness in today's case will testify that he saw the defendants vehicle outside of the victim's home late at night if there was no visual surveillance in today's case there wouldn't even be a motion to suppress in today's case there was visual surveillance and the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy we request that you deny the defense's motion thank you well thank you both it was a you both raise really good points it's a tough tough call really and when you read the authorities they seem to at least initially go in all directions both directions and there must be a clear threat or it must be an answer to what these authorities actually sum up to and the physical intrusion was required and trespassing on property and so on that was the criteria for early warrants and you look at some of these scholars back in history William Blackstone and people that have written about the evolution of the law and they talk about these things that curtilage the house and the barn and the hedged area around the house that was what was st. sacrosanct and then years went by and then things like telephone was invented and and we started challenging the issue of just the physical trespass type of criteria for ruling on what is a search and what is not a search and it became obvious that what people said on the phone and then later what people kept on their smartphones which they'd normally keep in a desk and now it's all on a phone they're carrying around with them are certainly entitled to the same privacy that would have been given to a person back in their home in the early days so and you have cases like cats coming along and cats versus the United States saying it's really the reasonable expectation of privacy that the Fourth Amendment protects more than simply places and I think justice Harlan really sums it up well in the Katz case where he says that first the person has to exhibit an actual subjective expectation of privacy and then that person that expectation must be one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable and that's really the issue here that second prong and then in the case of Riley versus California it stated that privacy related concerns are waiting enough when they're waiting enough a search may require or and really what this the facts of this case amount to is that the expectation of privacy is simply not waiting enough when you're talking about GPS coordinates from a provider it really differs very little from what could lie Boreas Li be done manually by simply trailing the individual the the actus the stored Communications Act gives some privacy to the individual it's not something that the government can just simply get without any effort they have to go to a judge and get an order and there are reasonable requirements for that so what the courts are saying is that there is no search in this case that requires a search warrant I think that's the summation of what the all the authorities stand for so with that being the case I'll have to deny the defense motion thank you thank you thank you your honor may we have a moment to set up certainly thank you your honor all right all parties ready now the people do have a few preliminary matters to cover it first we have a team roster if your honor would like the copy yes please may I approach thank you we'd also like to mark exhibits a through J for identification all right we'd also like to ask on behalf of both parties your preference as to moving behind counsels table and approaching the witness I haven't looked a stickler on that you can do whatever you're comfortable with would you like a sass we've before approaching the witness it's customary yes and finally we've asked that once it exhibits be admitted into evidence we'd be able to tender them to the witness stand for ease of access during trial you can do that the people are ready to receive all right defense any preliminary no your honor all housekeeping matters defense's interests were taken care of by opposing counsel thank you all right so then I will formally call the case of people vs. David said once again mr. Davidson is charged with the charge of first-degree murder and he has entered a plea of not guilty that that is the issue before the court today and if the people are ready for to make an opening statement please go ahead yes your honor may it please the court he saw his chance and he took it on September 14 2017 ACORN California was the site of a political rally at this rally the defendant Casey Davidson and his longtime rival Alex Thompson met face to face true to form the two fought this fight however was interrupted when mr. Thompson was punched in the face causing him to leave the route the defendant saw this followed he saw his chance and he took it the defendant caught up to mr. Thompson and the two fought once again this time the defendant raised up his walking stick and struck mr. Thompson in the head then he did it again these two blows crushed mr. Thompson's skull and killed him the people have charged the defendant with the first-degree murder of Alex Thompson in violation of California Penal Code section one eighty nine to meet our burden we must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant killed mr. Thompson and that he did so willfully deliberately and with premeditation Morgan Bonderman a friend of mr. Thompson's both testified to the pattern of violence between the defendant and mr. Thompson a pattern that led to mr. Bonderman finding his friend's body the court will then hear from detective Adrian Carroll will describe her investigation she will testify that she recovered clothing from the defendants home covered in mr. Thompson's blood she will also tell the court about death threats that were found under the Thompson's social media page death threats that were posted by the defendant Jaden Rodriguez the local reporter will tell the court about a fight that he saw just moments before mr. Thompson died between the defendant and mr. Thompson the court will hear that the defendant said here's my chance before following mr. Thompson finally acorns medical examiner Devin Morrison will testify she will tell the court that the weapon that was used to kill mr. Thompson was a walking stick a walking stick that belonged to the defendant on September 14 2007 teen the defendant struck mr. Thompson in the head with his walking stick and killed him he saw his chance and he took at the end of today's trial we will ask them to find him guilty as charged same defense wish to make an opening statement at this time were reserved we would get our opening statement in this time yeah I see yes good afternoon your honor once again my name is Martha Pezzini representing Casey Davis chaos today the prosecution will try to make sense of the chaos surrounding the September 14th reality but there are simply too many suspects too many unanswered questions and too much reasonable doubt about who killed Alex Thompson wind with what and why at the rally the police knew there was a potential for violence so they set up a blockade to prevent clashes between the two experienced troops Alex Thompson decided to cross this police line and begin throwing eggs at the people attending on the equality for all side this enraged many of the hundreds of people on the assaulted side so much and then at one point Alex Thompson was sucker punched in the face by an unknown assailant unfortunately Casey Davidson was standing next to Thompson when the punch came out of nowhere and he was covered in the blood that gushed out of both of Thompson's nose blood that spattered all over the scene leaving this case awash with reasonable doubt the defense will call for witnesses here today first Fabien Moreno an acquaintance of the defendant will explain that he saw Casey Davidson from around 9:50 - 1005 near City Hall nowhere near the scene of the murder next Avery Williams the owner of acorn tech shop will explain that Alex Thompson harassed him during all of their encounters and that Casey Davidson who was in acorn tech shop from around 10:00 10:00 to 10:00 12:00 third dr. toreally a forensic expert will explain that the blood on Davidson's clothes and walking stick very likely came from Thompson's playing those that Alex top said Casey Davidson's walking today may not have been the murder weapon that there were fingerprints on the walking stick not belonging to Davidson and that may have been a little after channel for showing that anyone at the rally could have killed Thompson finally my client Vincent will explain that he was at the rally in order to protest Oh Kennedy peacefully and not although he did not like Alex Thompson he did not do what he's accused of and was in no position to do this because he was nowhere near the scene of the crime Your Honor this case is simply too chaotic for anyone to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt the defense will show that my client Casey Davidson is not the murderous scheming bitter villain that the prosecution will try to pay him ass Casey Davidson strongly believes in his values but in no situation would he'd kill for them you will see that Alex Thompson could have been killed by anyone at the rally due to the chaos surrounding the event and there is reasonable doubt as to Davidson's guilt and therefore because there is reasonable doubt the court must find my client Casey Davidson not guilty thank you alright then if a people are ready to call the first witness please go ahead the people call Morgan Bonderman to the stand or environment fees report to the stand you solemnly affirm the testimony you're about to give will gratefully and truthfully important in the backs of the rules of our competition yes sir please save your first and last names going everyone Morgan mother than Bo nver mas good afternoon mr. Bonderman good afternoon sir what do you do for a living I am a freelance repairman fidei ain't broke don't call me did you know Alex Thompson yes Alex and I were good friends for five years do you know Casey Davidson yes sir I do do you see Casey Davidson in court today yes could you please identify him using an article of clothing he is sitting at the end of that table wearing the grain pink tie may the record reflect that mr. Bonderman has identified the defendant yes mr. Pond ermine how do you know the defendant I've seen Casey two times before the September 14th rally once was about a year before that at a different political rally and the other time was at the acorn farmers market why do you remember these two encounters well any time I saw Casey and Alex together it was like cats and dogs they fought on all the occasions I want to talk to you about those occasions what happened the first time that you saw the defendant of mr. Thompson in Iraq on the political realm well I saw Casey and Alex having a heated argument and then Casey waived his stick in the air what did mr. Thompson do Alex just turned walked away the second time at the farmers market one was that those on September 10th just four days before Alex died do please describe the interaction you saw on that day Alex and I were walking through the farmers markets Casey sauce and yelled you better cancel that stupid speech and then they got into an argument do you know what speech he was referring to there was the Mitchell Kennedy speech scheduled for that week were you involved in any way with the Mitchell Kennedy speech yes sir as a favor to Alex I was helping with the preparations we spent many late nights at the warehouse where Alex lived on the outskirts of town on any of those nights that you spent at mr. Thompson's warehouse did you see the defendant yes sir on two separate occasions I saw Casey parked in a car outside of Alex's house now I want to turn her attention to September 14th 2017 did you attend the rally that day yes sir I did did you witness mr. Thompson and the defendant interact yes true to form they were arguing do you remember how this argument ended I do they were having their argument and then some jerk came out of nowhere and sucker-punched Alex in the face he started bleeding so he ran to the bathroom to go deal with it won what's this that was at around 9:50 a.m. moon was the next time that you saw mr. Thompson well after about a half an hour Alex still hadn't come back so I went looking for him did you find him yeah that's that's when I found him dead thank you nothing further at this time your honor cross-examination yes good afternoon mr. mr. barnman afternoon sir mr. barnman you are friends with the victim Alex Thompson correct we were good friends yes in fact you even spent many late nights at his warehouse with them correct preparing for the speech that is correct but isn't it true that you won't have only before this rally on September 14th you had only met Casey Davidson twice in your life that is correct and the first time was about a year ago at a rally about a year before the September 14th rally yes and you saw Davidson and Thompson arguing at that rally yes yes sir and you saw Thompson get right up into Davidson's face that is correct it was a pretty heated argument but did you see mr. Davidson strike mr. Thompson no sir attorney to the altercation at the farmers market isn't it true that mr. Thompson trip mr. Davidson Alex did Tripp Casey that is correct and there was a small scuffle yes there was some shoving I had to separate the two of them and isn't it true that after the fact both had small cuts and scratches on them yes I think I saw a minor cuts and scrapes on both of them and you claim to have seen mr. Davidson's car outside of mr. Thompson's warehouse on multiple occasions correct yes sir but it was late at night each time right yes so it was dark yes as it was nighttime and you didn't actually see who was in the car correct I'm pretty sure I saw Casey but you had only met him twice before correct correct so you cannot be 100% sure that the man in this car was Casey Davidson I know what he looks like I believe it was Casey but you cannot be 100% sure no not 100% and turns to the altercation at the farm turned to the rally on September 14th did you attend yes sir and you saw and isn't it true that Alex Thompson crossed the police line yes Alex was more willing to engage the other side and someone punched him in the face correct yeah it was nasty but this person was not mr. Davidson correct and mr. Thompson's nose just blood all over correct yes he had a nosebleed it was a very very large nosebleed blood going all over right there's quite a bit of blood yes you even saw some large blood droplets on the grass I believe so that's correct thank you no further questions your honor people have any redirect no your honor may this witness be excused just think of your excuse thank you the next witness please the people call Adrian Carroll to the stand [Music] [Music] it's in there please raise your right hand you saw me affirm that the testimony you're about to give will faithfully and truthfully can fall back to the rules of the mock trial competition I do we state your first and last name spelling out your last name forever a dream Carroll CA RR o LL before I proceed may I place a few exhibits on the witness stand yes may I approach good afternoon good afternoon ma'am what do you do for a living I'm a detective with the Acorn Police Department and they took the lead on the Thompson homicide investigation what's your training and experience in law enforcement after my initial training at Quantico I worked for the FBI as a special agent and technical analyst for 12 years now you just mentioned that you took the lead on the Thompson a homicide investigation when did that begin it began on September 14th 2017 when the body was discovered in a secluded area of acorn Park was there anything of significance found near the body yes ma'am I recovered a walking stick and a tree branch I'd like to turn your attention to what's been marked for identification as exhibits F and G do you recognize these yes ma'am I do exhibit F is a photograph of the walking stick and exhibit G is a photograph of the tree branch does exhibit F fairly and accurately depict the walking stick yes ma'am and does exhibit G fairly and accurately depict the tree branch yes ma'am it does move exhibits F and G into evidence any objection yes they all received a G in evidence detective what did you do with these items I turned both over to the medical examiner for analysis why well ma'am they were both found near the decedent's body and appeared to be covered in blood detective what was the next step in your investigation a conducted subtle interviews ma'am did you ever identify a person of interest yes the defendant Casey Davidson after identifying the defendant as a person of interest what did you do I reviewed the defendants digital footprint did you find anything yes ma'am I did I found two threatening messages boasted from the defendants account on to mr. Thompson's page what were they objection your honor this question calls for hearsay did he counter to that yes your honor both of these statements that checked if Carrie will be testifying to our admission by a party opponent as they were from the defendant social media account Your Honor if I may argue my case later the defendant will testify that he did not post the original post Oh simply on his page someone else posted this therefore it is not admission by party Republicans any further comment on it yes your honor for admission by a party opponent although it does not say that specifically in our simplified mantra rules of evidence the standard for admissibility is evidence sufficient to support a finding and we do know that the social media posts were found from the defendants account I'll allow it at this time and maybe motion to a subject to strike later after the defense does testify thank you your honor detective what were the threatening messages that you found from the defendants account on to mr. Thompson's page the first message read Oh Kennedy followers like Thompson don't deserve to live the second was someone should kill idiots like you were you able to determine when these are posted of course the first message was posted in June of 2017 and the second was posted just a few days before mr. Thompson's death did you ask the defendant about these yes ma'am I did the defendant admitted to sending the second message now you mentioned earlier that you worked as a technical analyst for the FBI did you apply that expertise in the Thompson a homicide investigation yes ma'am based on a tip I exchanged GPS information regarding the defendants vehicle I'd like to turn your attention to exhibit J do you recognize this yes ma'am I do this is a printout of the GPS information I obtained objection your honor hearsay this is a printout of the would you repeat that one more time please it's a printout of the GPS information yes go ahead hearsay as to the information on the sheet as it is a out-of-court statement your honor first of all a detective material has not testify to any statement on the document however it is stipulated that exhibit J is a business record and therefore admissible under the hearsay exception business record any retort to that letter no your honor I will admit it I think you know detective please explain the significance of this information to the court during the two weeks leading up to mr. Thompson's death the GPS information places the defendants vehicle near building late at night in a remote area of town why is that significant ma'am there's only one building in that part of town and that's where mr. Thompson lived at the time of his death no were you ever able to obtain physical evidence directly from the defendant yes ma'am I was I searched the defendants home and recovered a gray shirt jeans and shoes which I turned over to the medical examiner for analysis lastly please turn your attention to what has been marked for identification as Exhibit C D and E do you recognize these yes ma'am I do these are photographs of the clothing I seized do they fairly and accurately depict that clothing yes ma'am move exhibit C D and E into evidence any objection no objection your honor those exhibits are admitted detective why did you turn these over to the medical examiner they all appeared to be covered in blood thank you nothing further at this time your honor the cross-examination thank you your honor at this time the defense respectfully requests the time check the defense has seven minutes and 38 seconds remaining and the people have six minutes 26 seconds thank you good afternoon miss Carroll good afternoon sir there were a couple hundred people at the rally correct correct and many of these people were members of the rats political group correct objection lack of foundation any response to that your honor may opposing counsel please clarify how this is a lack of foundation which foundation is lacking are you're claiming that there's no showing how this witness would know that fact is that correct yes we haven't heard about any of the groups that attended the rally thank you your honor your honor I will ask a previous question to establish this foundation yes are you aware of the rats political group yes sir I am and you are you aware that the rats were attending the rally yes they were and are you aware that alternates another violent group we're also the tenants at the rally yes sir and you're aware that Alex Thompson was a member of the alternates correct that's correct and you thought the rally would turn violent correct yes which is why we created a police line to divide the opposing groups yes but many people cross this police line to start fights right unfortunately they did and after the Rad's and alternates became rowdy the rally was canceled wasn't it yes for the safety of Mitch Oh Kennedy but before everyone left mr. Davidson yelled it was born correct shield time 20 a.m. and after that a riot broke out correct yes sir but Davidson complied with their orders and left the area right I asked him to leave town hall and he did so and at that time that he was leaving people were brandishing rudimentary weapons like tree branches and bricks correct that's correct and there were a number of fights at the rally that day correct yes they were you found a bloody tree branch at the scene of the murder right correct and you consider did the potential murder weapon I after my investigation I believe the walking stick was the weapon used to kill mr. Thompson but at the beginning when you first went to the scene the murder you considered the tree branch of ten murder weapon because I had blood on it correct there was a possibility and but you were never able to find out who used this tree branch correct unfortunately after several interviews I was able to determine whose tree branch it was in addition you learned in your investigation that somebody punched mr. Thompson in the face right yes and once again we weren't able to identify this individual unfortunately and finally despite the hundreds of people at the rally you weren't able to find one person who witnessed the murder correct correct thank you your honor no further questions people have any redirect exam yes your honor detective opposing counsel asked you about a few fights that occurred on September 14th do you know if the defendant got into a fight that day yes ma'am based on my interviews I learned that objection your honor this witness is testifying to hearsay certainly sounds like it do you have any rebuttal to that yes your honor this this was opened on cross-examination as opposing counsel asked about fights that occurred on September 14th in the only way that detective Carroll would know about those fights is again through hearsay your honor if I may argue this detective was at the rally making the police line therefore she should be able to testify to what she saw the fights at the rally that day I believe is hearsay I sustained the objection movement to strike whatever the witness said motion is granted you may have you heard your honor all right detective Carroll has been stipulated as an expert and therefore can rely on otherwise inadmissible evidence as hearsay your honor if I may yes this uh detective Charles only stipulated as an expert in GPS location data not in not in the rally therefore Detective cannot testify to other words this tignous yes I agree you're correct on that so I'll stand with my water that be hearsay in the motion the dragan thank you your honor detective were you able to determine what member or what group the defendant was a member of yes ma'am objection your honor oh wait lack of foundation Your Honor I asked the question I believe her answer would be the fact I think the question was asking for a foundational answer so you may be premature thank you your honor were you able to determine what group the defendant was a member of yes ma'am after my investigation we now believe that the defendant was part of the rods and do you know how the rods get across their message well the rods are an anarchist group that are known to resort to violence in order to get their message across thank you nothing further may this witness be excused thank you you're excused and that people's necks with us the people call Hayden Rodriguez to the stand Hayden Rodriguez please report to the stand please wait there we follow me in there please raise your right hand do you solemnly affirm that the testimony you're about to give will faithfully and truthfully conform to the facts of the rules of the mock trial competition yes I do please state your first and last name spelling out your last name for the record hey DRI please be seated may I proceed good afternoon mr. Rodriguez good afternoon ma'am what do you do for a living I'm actually a reporter for the Acorn Herald what are you reporting on the Oh Kennedy rally on September 14 2017 yes I was I was writing a piece in the paper on some of the radical groups they had planned to attend the road do you know the defendant Casey Davidson well absolutely ma'am I'm a political reporter first and foremost and Casey Davidson he's one of the most politically active people in town I've seen him at multiple rallies over the years did you see the defendant a Theo Kennedy rally oh yes he was in the thick of things did you know Alex Thompson yes ma'am he too was one of the most politically active people in town did you see him at the o-canada valley yes he was there as well any point at that rally did you see the defendant and mr. Thompson fight oh yeah I'm pretty sure everyone did well did that surprise you dinner making it bigger this has to mean who everyone is yes sustained motion to strike thank you if you wish to be heard go ahead it seemed pretty obvious which you can retort if you wish it just to be clear is the latter portion of his answer that everyone saw stricken yes the beginning remains yes thank you thank you did it surprise you that the two of them fought no no why it's no secret around town the two of them Thompson and Davidson did not care for one another so how did the fight on September 14th 2017 begin well Davidson comes Thompson begins yelling at him they begin a fight struggle over what looks like Davidson's walking stick judge me on earth when is his lapsing new narrative opposing counsel asked how the fight how the fight began not how it and soon I don't think it achieved a narrative yet please continue well after they began struggling Davidson screams at Thompson get back on your side of the line or you'll get what's coming to you how did it end and some comes up from behind Thompson and punches him right in the face it was crazy he begins to leave runs in the direction of the bathroom well how did the defendant respond he walked in the same direction did he say anything yes ma'am he said here's my chance was he carrying anything he had his walking stick thank you nothing further at this time cross-examine cross-examination area yes once again my name is Patrick Reilly and for the convenience of the court this one is a statement can be found starting on page 35 may proceed yes please good afternoon mr. Rodriguez afternoon sir you attended the Oh Kennedy speech on September 14th looking for a story correct a story but track filling the gaps and you are familiar with mr. Davidson correct yes yes I am and you're familiar with mr. Thompson yes I was and you saw an altercation break out between the two of them on the day of the rally correct now before this altercation broke up mr. Thompson crossed the police line didn't he yes and before this altercation broke out mr. Thompson began throwing eggs at people correct objection relevance your honor is the prosecution's theory that because mr. Thompson frequently threw eggs at people and therefore and incited violence and created enemies that there were people relevant there there were people there that would have wanted him dead response to that yes your honor in that case I move my objection to improper character evidence all right you want to respond to that yes your honor this is permissible because it is offered to show the victim's character your honor the victims character is only admissible if it goes to show the defendants innocence and this character of the victim does not show it could be relevant on that though it could be probative on that point although all the overrule the objection thank you your honor good night mr. Rodriguez you saw mr. Thompson throw eggs at people correct yes that was before the altercation began that was and once the altercation began mr. Thompson grabbed the walking stick correct mr. Davidson's walking stick yes they struggle over the walking stick and it appears though mr. Thompson was trying to take it from mr. Davidson that's what would appear so yes but he did not now out of nowhere right after that mr. Thompson was punched in the face correct yes he began bleeding yes he did and nosebleed in fact the nose was gushing blood wasn't it it was quiet and you were a few feet away right yes I was you weren't as close to the nosebleed as mr. Davidson was mr. mr. Davidson was close enough to I'm sorry mr. Davidson was close enough for mr. Thompson to grab the walking stick right yes but they had already exchanged words at that point and now you you noticed despite the fact that you're a few feet away you noticed a number of a large blood spatter drops on your shoes later that evening I went home and saw blood on my shoes but I'm not sure what it's from you're not sure what it was from no but the mr. Thompson's nose was gushing blood and you were standing by next week objection asked and answered sustained now in your witness statement you mentioned the blood on your shoes immediately after you discuss the bloody nose correct objection hearsay I'm sorry could you ask that question one more time this statement he mentions that he blood on his shoes immediately after mentioning the bloody nose that's what asked and go ahead and elaborate on your objection yes your honor opposing counsel asked in your statement you said following and the statement that mr. Rodriguez has made is an out-of-court statement that opposing counsel is using in court for the truth of the matter are you using the statement for impeachment no no your honor what's the purpose of the statement I'm simply offering to show that it was possible that the blood came from the nose bleed is he denying that maybe you should just ask that question first Your Honor this witness testified that he did not know where the blood came from implying that it did not come from the nosebleed I see did you have an opportunity to answer I need in your statement you state you mentioned the blood on your shoes immediately after mentioning the nosebleed correct that's correct but like I said I don't know where that blood came from and after this altercation you saw mr. Thompson walk away from the crowd correct yes and you saw mr. Davidson walk in the same direction yes that's correct and you heard Mr Davidson say here's my chance yes and he didn't walk away and say here's my chance four minutes after mr. Thompson left the rally did he mr. Thompson went talked to a friend and then walked in the back of the crowd that's when mr. Davidson said here's my chance that spanned over minutes a couple short minutes maybe now you you didn't see where mr. Davidson went after he said here's my chance to you know actually the back of the crowd you didn't follow him though did you mr. Rodriguez no not so after he left your line of sight you didn't see where he went no I did I saw him go to his back in the crowd after he left your line of sight no I not and you so you did not see his destination no I did not and you did not see what he did no but I saw him with his walking stick and you returned home that day glad that this story made for a good material correct excuse me you returned home that day glad that this story made for good material is that right I sure I'm supposed to your honor no further questions redirect no your honor may this witness be excused yes you're excused thank you thank you people's next witness before we call ernet next witness the people would ask for a time check the people have three minutes and 41 seconds remaining and the defense has two minutes and 15 seconds thank you the people called Devin Morrison to the stand Devin Morrison please report to the stand please follow me please stand there please raise your right hand do you solemnly affirm the testimony you're about to give will faithfully and truthfully please state your first and last names coming out your last name for the record good afternoon dr. Morrison good afternoon what do you do for a living I am the medical examiner for a crow in California what qualifies you to be the medical examiner I earned my medical degree from Northern California State University I've performed over a hundred autopsies and I've been practicing for a total of about 15 years did you perform an autopsy on Alex Thompson I did and based on that autopsy did you determine the cause of death yes the cause of death of Alex Thompson was a subdural hematoma caused by two depressed skull fractures on the left side of the cranium what does that mean essentially that means that mr. Thompson was struck twice on the left side of the head with a heavy blunt object this crushed his skull and caused intervenor narrative no I think it's still part of the answer thank you please continue as I was saying the two blows to the head crushed his skull and caused internal bleeding which put pressure on the brain and forced it to shut down were you able to determine what mr. Thompson struck with yes he was struck with the walking stick would like you to turn to exhibit F it's exhibit in front of you do you recognize this this is a photograph of the walking stick how did you determine that the walking stick was the weapon used to kill mr. Thompson not only is there a large amount of mr. Thompson's blood on this walking stick his skin cells are embedded in that blood what's the significance of finding skin cells well in order for a person to bleed skin must be broken broken skin necessitates the transfer of skin cells did you find any fingerprints on this walking stick yes I recovered several sets were you able to identify any of those fingerprints 14 of those prints were confirmed to be the defendants did you determine anything about the manner in which mr. Thompson was killed yes mr. Thompson was approached and attacked from the front and struck with that walking stick the attacker was right-handed how did you reach that conclusion well mr. Thompson had scratches on the inner forearms indicating that he had shielded himself against an attack from the front earlier you mentioned it's part of your job to examine forensic evidence did you do so in today's case of course I analyzed some clothing and a pair of shoes what did your analysis of these items reveal they all had mr. Thompson's blood on them was there any significance as to the pattern of the blood yes on the lower right hand portion of the shirt I examined there is a transfer smear what's a trans miss me it's a smear that results when blood is transferred from one object to another whoever was wearing that shirt used it to wipe a long bloody object were you able to determine what that object was yes the walking stick which was used to kill mr. Thompson had a matching smear thinking nothing further at this time your honor cross-examination mr. honor once again my name is Patrick Reilly for the convenience of this Court that's at page 33 the page you were giving me what again yes the page 33 thank you now I'd like to discuss something you talked about on direct examination you said that on the walking stick the defendants walking stick there were the defendants fingerprints correct yes there were also a set of fingerprints to whom you did not identify the the owner correct there was one set yes so somebody touched that that walking stick and it wasn't the defendant at some point in time yes No you analyzed heart rate levels from mr. Thompson's fitness tracker correct I did and the the fitness tracker revealed that that mr. Thompson's heart rate stopped it I'm sorry mr. Thompson's heart rate stopped it 10:04 I am correct yes at 10:04 the fitness tracker registered no heartrate no the fitness struck was broken when it was found on mr. Thompson's body correct this screen is cracked yes and if if the fitness tracker broke before mr. Thompson died it's possible that he could have died after 1004 correct yes however it wouldn't have been short it it would have been shortly after because the blow that brick the fitness tracker would have been the blow that killed mr. Thompson so dr. Morrison you can't provide an exact time of death can you it was 1004 or shortly after what you can't be any more precise than that it was 1004 shortly after Cal and you you analyzed the true branch found at the murder site correct I did and you found a set of unidentified fingerprints on there I actually found a set of partial fingerprints and you couldn't identify to whom these fingerprints belonged partial fingerprints cannot be identified and you you examine the blood on the tree branch correct I did and his blood is consistent with cast-off splatter yes implying that blood would have spattered for mr. Thompson's head wound to the tree branch yes dr. Morrison you are aware that the tree branch was found 15 feet from mr. Thompson's dead body correct that's correct no further questions your honor any redirect no your honor may this witness be excused or excuse me do the people have any further evidence no your honor at this time the people rest and the defense are you ready to go forward with your first witness the defense calls Fabian Moreno to the stand he's in there please raise your right hand do you solemnly affirm that the testimony you are about to give will faithfully and truthfully conform to the backs of the rules of the mock trial competition they do we state your first and last name spelling out your last name for the record baby Moreno and our you know please be seated scoring purposes my name is David and dunk your honor before we begin I'm going to ask this witness questions about Exhibit A so Drive permission put um today a witness now proceed yes good afternoon mr. Moreno afternoon could you please tell us a little bit about yourself my name is Fabian Moreno I've lived in acorn for nine years I'm a history teacher at acorn high school I'm a member of the efn do you know Casey Davidson I do how do you know mr. Davidson I've seen Davidson before previous rallies and did you attend the rally on September 14th yes I did how many people were there I'd have to say about a few hundred and where were you standing in this crowd of a few hundred about two-thirds of the way back was there a particular reason why you stood towards the back Your Honor relevance your honor if I may be very pleased yes this the answer this question is relevant because for this witness to show us to tell us truthfully what he saw we have to know where he was standing so we can get his viewpoint on this we testified where he was standing that question was why were you staying this like understood or right I think that's what was objected to as you will see the the answer to the next couple questions will show that there was people acting violently I'll let you go on with it in that if it turns out to be irrelevant I'll strike find emotionless go ahead did you get a chance to finish to answer no can't please you asked was there a particular reason why you stood towards the back of the crowd I expected that that if there was any fighting to occur at court occur towards the front and I wanted to stay out of it so I stayed towards the back so did you see many people at the at the rally acting in a violent manner yes I did did you see mr. Davidson at the okay in the event yes several times was mr. Davidson carrying a walking stick yes he was is this behavior ad abnormal at all no I've seen him before previous rallies and he's always had this walking stick with him was there anything else he was holding he was holding a bullhorn did you see anybody else at the rally with the bullhorn other than other than the police no Davis was the only person I saw that day with a board and did you see mr. Davidson out around 9:50 yes I did and was he holding anything at that time he was holding his bullhorn and resting it up upon his shoulder did he have the walking stick I don't remember him having the walking stick could you please direct your attention to exhibit a yes do you recognize if it a yes it is a map of acorn park would you say it is a fair and accurate depiction yes I would say that did you see mr. Davidson at all through the next 15 20 minutes I saw man who I'm pretty positive was Davidson three to four times and where was he at this time he was towards the front of the rally toward the City Hall what made you believe that this was mr. Davidson well the man I saw was holding a bullhorn and Davidson is the only person I saw at David the board and the man I saw was the same size and shape of Davidson did you see mr. Davidson at all later in the rally I saw him at 10:20 on the steps of City Hall Your Honor at this time the defense requests that exhibit a be moved into evidence any objection no your honor all right this is received and what was going on at that time of 10:20 a riot was beginning to break out do Casey Davidson have that walking stick at that time no you didn't so at the time that this riot was breaking out did you see many people acting in a violent manner yes it's Casey Davidson one of them no no not Casey thank you no further questions your honor cross-examine yes your honor good afternoon mr. marina good afternoon I want to talk to you about the time period from 950 to 1005 you testified on direct examination that you saw someone you thought was the defendant during this time period very positive yes just to be clear you saw this person three or four times yes over a 15 minute times me yes so it wasn't continuous no it was not there's a lot of people shifting around but saw multiple times as you mentioned you saw the person you thought was the defendant near the front of the crowd yes when you were two thirds of the way back right that is correct there were people in between you and the person you thought was the defendant yes but I got good glimpses oh well you never saw this person's face no I didn't this person was wearing a black sweatshirt right yes with the hood up yes same as a lot of other people that were wearing that at the rally right yes people were carrying makeshift weapons right yeah they were holding those weapons up in the air yes that was between you and the person you thought was the defendant yes just want to make one thing clear when you say you saw the defendant from 92 to 1005 that's just an assumption right can you please repeat the question when you say that you saw the defendant from 952 1005 that's an assumption I'm pretty positive but of course Injection yarns this is hearsay no did you want to respond Your Honor this was in court therefore it's not an out-of-court statement being you know he's just giving his opinion I don't think it's hearsay thank you when you say that you saw the defendant from 952 1005 that's an assumption yes and I assume that from his bullhorn that is an assumption of course yes nothing forever any redirect no redirect your honor miss witness please be excused yes your excuse Thanks people call I'm sorry I'm in the defense call their next witness yes the defense calls mr. Avery Williams to the stand everyone stand please follow me he's staying there Jesus raise your right hand do you solemnly affirm that the testimony you are about to give faithfully and truthfully conform to the facts of rules of the mock trial competition I did please state your first and last name spelling out your last name for the record please be seated and for our purposes my name is Michael Perez and once again my name is Patrick Reilly and for the convenience of the court this witness's statement can be found starting on page 44 I will be asking this witness about exhibit H may it place a copy on the witness stand yes may I proceed yes good afternoon mr. Williams good afternoon please introduce yourself for the court my name is avery Williams I own a corn tech shop and I'm also a friend of KC Davidson's how do you know mr. Davidson he's a regular customer of mine even bought a bullhorn from me once do you should you regularly share a car with mr. Davidson yes I do is there any sort of formal schedule no we don't have any kind of formal schedule Davidson rarely uses his car so I get to use it when I please without without having to tell him now are you familiar with mr. Alex Thompson yes I was I knew Alex Thompson were the two of you friends no we were not friends what do you say that well every interaction he had with me as a cop with us a customer was negative can you provide any specific instances yeah I remember one time he was in my store and quarrying about a printer he had bought on layaway she was trying to get it to he's trying to get me to sell it to him even though he hadn't bought it on full objection relevance Your Honor this is incredibly relevant because it is providing information that may may point to an alternate suspect to this crime saying that the that mr. Thompson had other enemies anything else yes your honor they're asking about a printer that mr. Thompson bought on layaway I don't see how this has any bearing over the facts in today's case your honor as you'll see with further questioning this witness will testify that there was much much animosity between him and mr. Thompson as a result of the printer go ahead set pic to a motion to strike if that doesn't turn out that way thank you no mr. Williams I'll ask once more did you can you provide any specific instances that point to the bad relationship between you and mr. Thompson yeah as I was saying he would try to get me to give him a printer that he hadn't bought for full price and things escalated and he even tried to strike me in the face at some point did did he hit you no luckily Casey came in and he yes could the situation objection improper character evidence Your Honor this is admissible not only because it provides character evidence to the defendant but also because it is showing that the defendant who at this time is being charged with them is really not not a violent person at all in fact tries to mediate situations such as this so you're asking him you're saying that the victim attempted to assault him yes and then that your client came in yes yes anything further on that yes your honor on page 72 of the mock trial simplified rules of Evidence Rule 1 the defendants own character the defense can only bring up the defendants character in the form of opinion or reputation and not in the form of specific instances which opposing counsel is trying to do here all right we'll respond to that this is this piece of evidence is simply foundation for mr. mr. Williams opinion of the defendant I think it's allowable I don't believe it's software for the purpose of showing the character of the of anybody in particulars just showing that the relationship between these parties Oh mr. Williams did you have an opportunity to finish your answer yes okay Casey became in a media at the situation now I'd like to direct your attention to the morning of the o Canada rally on September 14th sure were you in your store yes I was did mr. Davidson walk in yes he did what was he doing well his phone had died so he came in votes and batteries for it objection speculation Your Honor this witness saw mr. Davidson come in and buy batteries all right now you objected to a particular part of that question or the whole question yes your honor only to the portion that said that the bullhorn was dead we have no objection to the defendant by any retort to that no your honor I think you're right that small part be stricken actually Your Honor if I may be heard go ahead this witness if he if mr. Davison came in to buy batteries I think it would be reasonable for him to infer that that that the battery the bull phone was dead good point although it thank you your honor may proceed yes mr. Williams did you finish your answer yes his boner died came bought some batteries and did you did you see any blood on the bullhorn no now did you give him a receipt first purchase yes I did now directing your attention to exhibit H do you recognize this receipt yeah this is actually the receipt that uh I gave to Davidson on that day how did you print this receipt well my cash register prints receipt a time at every transaction and what is shown on the only receipt Oh as you can see here you have what the date with the time and date of the transaction you have what the defendant bought and you have how he paid for it what is the time of transaction 10:00 12:00 a.m. and is this consistent with what you saw in that day yeah it is no no at this time the defense asks that exhibit H be moved into evidence any objection no objection it is received now mr. Williams one last question how long was mr. Davidson in your store that day about five minutes Thank You mr. Williams your honor no further questions cross-examination may I proceed yes good afternoon mr. Williams good afternoon now you did mention on direct examination that you're friends with the defendant yeah we're friends and you share a car with the defendant correct I do like its use it whenever I please without telling you right but you don't remember using it at any point in the beginning of September do you know I can't remember a specific specific notes and you only use it about two to three times a month roughly yeah you only use it two to three times a month yeah now turn your attention to September 14th 2017 you saw the defendant that day yeah he came into my store and he had blood on his clothes right yeah he did and you said on direct examination that you didn't see blood on the bullhorn that he was carrying right there was no blood on the bullhorn now the defendant told you that day that he wanted to cause a disruption yes with his bullhorn well he told you he wanted to cause a disruption yes he also told you that he was anxious anxious kid his bullhorn working yeah mr. Williams he told you that he was anxious yeah and he also appeared to be in a hurry right yeah appeared to be in a hurry thank you nothing further girls examination yes your honor there will be redirected I mean redirect I'm sorry the defense respectfully request a time check direct examination the defense has 8 minutes and 40 seconds remaining and that people have 7 minutes and 10 seconds Thank You mr. Williams was mr. Davidson's mr. Davidson's actions were they were they unusual for misbehaving this character oh nothing unusual that I witnessed Thank You mr. Williams no further questions your honor may this one is please be excused excused thank you thank you and the next defense witness please yes your honor the defense calls dr. Tori Lee to the stand we really please report to the stand please follow me please raise your right hand do you solemnly affirm that the testimony you are about to do truthfully conform to the backs of the rules of the mock trial competition please be seated and for scoring purposes my name is wig Randall once again your honor my name is Patrick Reilly before the starting on page 41 may proceed yes good afternoon dr. Lee good afternoon please introduce yourself for the court my name is torie Lee and I'm an independent forensic pathologist can you describe your experience from the court yes I received my medical degree from peaceful State University I've spent 14 years as a forensics expert in San Francisco and since then I have started my own consulting firm for forensics and how are you involved in this case I was asked to evaluate and determine the cause of death in this case and so I reviewed all medical and police records I also examined all physical evidence with the exception of the victim's body it was dr. Morrison's report involved in that evidence yes it was now dr. Morrison opens that the blood on the defendants the defendants belongings was a result of mr. Thompson's nose and yes mr. Thompson's head wound do you agree with this I do not I believe that this is consistent with the nose bleed that Thompson suffered earlier in the day directing your attention to Exhibit C DME can you explain the blood spatter on these on these clothes yes as you can see on the exhibits all the blood is on the left side of mr. Davidson's clothing this is consistent to him standing to the right of Thompson when he was punched now dr. Lee I'd like to direct your attention to the exhibits once more do you recognize exhibit F yes this is photograph of Davidson's bloody Walker's death did you find any of I'm sorry strike that can you explain the numerous blood spatter marks in the defendants walking stick yes as you see on the top the blood spatters are smaller than those on the bottom this is what you do expect from blood falling from above on to an upright walking stick did you find any of mr. Thompson's fingerprints on the walking stick yes I did did you find any of mr. Thompson's skin cells on the walking stick yes I did and now did you find any of mr. Thompson's skin I'm sorry did you find mr. Tong mr. Davidson skin cells underneath mr. Thompson's fingernails yes I did and how do you explain the presence of these skin cells these skin cells likely survived from the confrontation at the farmers market as skin cells can stay under fingernails for four days and did you did you find any additional fingerprints on the walking stick yes I did there is a set of unknown finger prints at the end of the walking stick as if we reuse this sort of a baseball bat now do you recognize exhibit G yes I do this is a photograph of the tree branch found near the crime scene could this have been the murder weapon yes it fits the size specifications and it contains enough blood to be the murder weapon did you find any fingerprints on the tree branch I found partial prints but I wasn't able to salvage them as can be this case with rough surfaces such as the park on the tree branch now dr. Morrison claims that the wounds on mr. mr. Thompson's body are consistent with a right-handed attacker attacking from the front do you agree with this conclusion this is correct but the wounds on the victims temple as well as the defensive wounds on the hands of the wrists are also consistent with the left-handed attacker attacking from behind so dr. Lee can anyone say for certain the handedness of the attacker no as the evidence is consistent with both a left-handed attacker from behind or right-handed attacker from the front and can anyone say for certain what was used to kill mr. Thompson no there's not enough evidence to conclusively say which was murder weapon can anyone say who killed mr. Thompson no there's not enough evidence to conclude anyone as a murder thank you dr. Lee your honor no further questions cross-examination yes your honor good afternoon dr. Lee good afternoon I want to start with something you said on direct you said that Thompson's fingerprints were found on the walking stick I misspoke my mistake there a set of unknown fingerprints and Davidson's fingerprints well those unknown fingerprints could have belonged to Thompson right hey man no just to clarify you were hired by the defense in this case I often work with the police in order to give my testimony on my expert opinion in Taos yes so you were hired by the defense in this case right yes can your honor relevance anything you want to say goes to bias Your Honor I think so you like to renew my objection to ask an answer it is right by me so just to be clear is it an evidence that dr. Lee was hired by the defense yes you used to be a medical examiner for the city of San Francisco right that's correct so what he knows excuse me so you know that medical examiner's perform autopsies yes often they conduct tests on forensic evidence yes just to be clear you did not perform an autopsy in this case no I reviewed dr. Morrison's that's right you are reliant on the findings of dr. Morris yes you're you are reliant on the testing done by dr. Morrison right yes I am on the body so the only thing that's really different is not the evidence but your conclusions that's correct I want to talk to you about your conclusions you believe that the blood on mr. Todd and mr. Davidson's clothes came from a nosily right that's correct yes so it must have been a very heavy nose yes it was described as a very happy nose please whoever must have gotten everywhere yes that was what it was described now you're aware that the defendant had a bullhorn with him at the time of the nosebleed that's correct there was no blood on that Bowl there was not now on direct examination you said that the blood was exclusively on the left side of the defendants clothing right that's correct with the exception of smear on the right side of mr. Davidson's shirt exactly there's a smear mark on mr. Davidson's shirt yes that's not consistent with the nose week perhaps of the wiping of a stick some sort it is not consistent with a nosebleed not from the splatter from this plate now you do believe that the walking stick could be the murder weapon in this case right it is a possibility and you agree that if the walking stick was the murder weapon the defendant could have been the murderer he could have been yes nothing further any redirect yes your honor dr. Lee if the walking stick was the murder weapon who could have been the attack they could have been anyone as there was a set of unknown fingerprints as well as the defendants so can anyone say for certain who the attacker was objection your honor as an answer I think a few of your cross-examination it's fair thank you your honor you have an opportunity answer your question no I did not my question so no one can say for certain who the attacker was no there's not enough evidence thank you your honor no further questions I mean this witness please be excused thank you thank you in the next defense witness yes your honor but first the defense would like to respectfully request the time checked the defense has four minutes and 38 seconds remaining and the people have five minutes and two seconds thank you now the defense calls to the stand Casey Davidson Casey David Teniers report on the stand please follow me please stand there please raise your right hand do you solemnly affirm the testimony or willfully and truthfully informed the facts in the rules of the mock trial competition I do please save your first and last name spelling out your last name for the record [Music] once again Your Honor my name is Jacob Buitoni and for the convenience of the court this witness's statement can be found starting on page 38 thank you good afternoon mr. Davidson good afternoon can you please tell the court a little about yourself my name is Casey Davidson I'm a resident of acorn and I have been for my entire life are you a member of any political groups yes actually I'm a member of the EFA what is the EFA well the EFA is a non violent Proma Gration group that opposes the backwards thinking of nativist and nationalists and ways that promote peace I believe everybody should be allowed in this great country are you aware of the rats group yes they are also a pro-immigration group however they approach topics in a rather violent manner are you a member of the rats no no I'm not a member of the rats they always ruin our peaceful protests with their violent ways I think they give groups like the EFA a bad name and are you familiar with the late Alex Thompson yes we've attended several the same political rallies over the past few years including Theo Kennedy Raleigh did mr. Thompson share your political views no we had contradicting political views but I enjoyed continually debating with him on the topic of tantaran immigration do you know what the political group mr. Thompson was a part of mr. Thompson was a part of the Oh a a conservative anti-immigration group and did you ever have any personal interactions with mr. Thompson we've had a few arguments over the years but they were nothing more than arguments it wasn't really a secret that we disliked each other's views did you like mr. Thompson no not particularly why not well he has harassed myself and others on multiple occasions what kind of harassment have you witness several months ago when I was walking into the acorn tech shop I saw Thompson's swing his fists at my friend the owner Avery Williams thankfully I got there in time and mediated the situation to prevent any further violence you mentioned earlier that you yourself have been harassed can you please elaborate on this sure on September 10th I was a farmers market where I saw Thompson Thompson proceeded to trip me and when I tried to get back up he grabbed me were you hurt thankfully no broken bones but there are bruises and definitely scratches did you ever post anything on social media about mr. Thompson well today I've been accused of posting to posts however I only posted one of them and that was after the September 10th incident where Thompson tripped me why did you post this message I post this message because I was just venting it was really stupid of me to do it and I forgot to delete it after it cooled off do you know who posted the other message no I don't know who post the other message and did you mean for the message you posted to be interpreted as a threat no definitely not I was just venting I didn't want anybody to take anything I said seriously I'd like to shift your attention to the Oh Canada rally on September 14th you mentioned earlier that you attended this rally did you see mr. Thompson there yes I did and did you see him harass anyone there yes actually at around 9:50 that morning I saw Thompson cross the police line and start throwing eggs at people wearing tents or in hoodies what if anything did you do after you saw him throwing yes well I told him to stop that and asked him back to his side of the line but he refused and grabbed my walking stick and he tried to take it from me after mr. Thompson tried to take your walking stick what happened someone I didn't recognize came up from behind Thompson and punched him in the nose really hard did you see where mr. Thompson's attacker went no I never saw him again after mr. Thompson was punched what did you see his nose started gushing blood everywhere all over my clothes and shoes Thompson even had to hold onto my walking stick so he wouldn't follow from the blow of the punch and then just chaos erupted what do you mean by chaos everybody including myself was getting pushed around quite a bit and in the midst of all of that I lost my walking stick what did you do next well in an effort to drown out of Kennedy's speech I wanted to start chanting my born unfortunately my batteries were dead so I took the chance to go to the acorn tech shop and buy new batteries at what time did you purchase these batteries I'd have to check my receipt but I'd say around 10:10 the morning give or take a few minutes after purchasing the batteries what did you I've made my way back to the park into the front of the crowd and finally mr. Davidson did you kill Alex Thompson I did not kill Alex Thompson I was shocked when I heard I was shocked when I heard the news about mr. Thompson's death nobody deserves to die like that thank you your honor no further questions cross-examination good afternoon mr. Davidson good afternoon ma'am now on direct examination you said that you witnessed mr. Thompson try to punch your friend mr. Williams that's true that made you mad right I thought it was uncalled for and on September 14th you saw mr. Thompson throwing eggs at people I did that made you mad right I thought I wasn't called for well you even screamed at mr. Thompson get back on your side of the line or you'll get what's coming to you I was just telling him get back on his side of line so he wouldn't get arrested by the police mr. Davidson you said or you'll get what's coming to you the police were coming for him ma'am now you also mentioned on direct examination that you'd have to check your receipt about the timing that you were at the tech shop right yes ma'am so you kept that receipt yeah I did now I want to turn your attention to the events of September 14th 2017 you made a few comments - mr. Thompson that day could you define comments well you said there aren't enough police to stop us objection your honor unfair extrapolation that comment wasn't made to mr. Thompson I have to cite me to a part of a text at my answer the question your honor this statement was made at this statement was male on page 40 at line lines 20 through 22 there aren't enough police to stop us let's get the tantaran haters now and this is at 10:20 a.m. at which time mr. Thompson was dead therefore mr. Davidson could not have made this statement to him any response your honor perhaps I misspoke this isn't specifically to mr. Thompson I was just asking if he made this statement on September 14 go ahead and rephrase and try again thank you your honor mr. Davidson on September 14th 2017 you said there aren't enough police to stop us yes I was trying to start a chant what you said let's get these tantaran haters now I was trying to gather my supporters and then a few days earlier you made a post from your social Media account - mr. Thompson's page right yes I did that said someone should kill idiots like you yes like I stated in cross Aran direct I'm sorry however I was just venting and I forgot to delete it after I cooled off I really regret that well on direct examination you said that you didn't mean it as a threat right that's right right but the statement is someone should kill idiots like you I don't believe it's a threat mr. Davidson you said someone should kill idiots like you I did objection answer sustained thank you no mr. Davidson on direct examination you also said you're a non violent person I am very non violent person you don't resort to violence I try not to right but you've gotten into a few arguments with mr. Thompson right which were provoked by him I believe well they may have been provoked by mr. Thompson but you pushed mr. Thompson during his arguments right mm-hmm I don't believe so could you cite that objection your honor bacon ambiguous the council's quest opposing counsels question did you push mr. Thompson I don't believe that is very specific as to what she means by push like whether physically push or just provoke I think that's it's a fair question overruled you push mr. Thompson I don't understand your question could you rephrase mr. Davidson you've gotten into arguments with mr. Thompson in which you have physically responded yes or no I have physically responded in defense of myself yes so you did get physical with mr. Thompson in defense myself yes now you also mentioned that you witnessed mr. Thompson get punched on September 14th 2017 yes ma'am I did it was quite a hard punch too and you were wearing a sweatshirt over your shirt at that time yep and you were carrying your bullhorn yeah it was up on my shoulder no after that punch you walked away yes I did and then you took off your sweatshirt because it got warm now mr. Davidson I'd like to turn your attention to Exhibit C in front of you got it yeah that's the shirt you were wearing on September 14th 2017 that is my shirt there's blood on that shirt in the bottom left-hand corner there's also blood on the right hand corner right yes and that was the shirt you were wearing under your sweatshirt when mr. Thompson got punched yes but my shirt was on tuck so that explains the blood on the bottom left-hand side of the shirt Oh mr. Davidson you never said that your shirt was peeking out from under your sweatshirt right yes I did it was untucked mr. Davidson you were wearing a sweatshirt on top of that shirt when mr. Thompson was punched yeah it was now I want to turn your attention to exhibit F one second count Arius yeah good that's your walking stick it is my prized possession nothing further any redirect yes your honor mr. Davidson on the day of the rally you were wearing a sweatshirt were you wearing a sweatshirt I was wearing a sweatshirt yes and were you wearing a t-shirt underneath the switcher yes I was and was this t-shirt how is this t-shirt position relative to the sweatshirt it was untucked so naturally it was t-shirt a little bit thank you objection unfair extrapolation well you can say it was untucked so naturally would not necessarily follow so I would agree with you probably on that unless you want to be heard going your honor him saying that's untucked considering the struggle over the walking stick that he had with mr. Thompson it's only reasonable that the considering his hands are up that the sweatshirt would go up and the shirt would be revealed honor it's a reasonable argument to make but it's not something that follows from the fact that it was untucked and the words you're finally are human you might make that point as possibility but it's not something that he can necessarily say that's the case because the shirt was untucked first yes whatever was untucked thank you all right move to strike yes granted no further questions your honor made this witness please return to his seat yes thank you you're excused does the defense have any further evidence no your honor the defense rests and then we come to the time when the attorneys can give their summation their final argument and let's start with the people may I first request the time check the people have 5 minutes and 42 seconds for closing and the defense has 6 minutes and 17 seconds thank you may it please the court yes please go ahead Oh Canada followers like Thompson don't deserve to live the defendants words months before mr. Thompson was killed someone should kill idiots like you the defendants words days before mr. Thompson was killed you'll get what's coming to you moments before mr. Thompson was killed here's my chance the defendant said as he followed mr. Thompson to a secluded area of acorn park with his Walkingstick in hand your honor the defendant told you himself he saw his chance on September 14th 2017 and he took it the people have charged the defendant Casey Davidson with the first-degree murder of Alex Thompson to meet our burden we had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant willfully deliberately and with premeditation killed Alex Thompson Your Honor willfully means that the defendant intended to kill and you've heard on the stand today by both experts in today's case that Alex Thompson was hit twice if the defendant didn't intend to kill with the first blow he did with the second the honor deliberate means that the defendant weighed out his options and decided to act in that moment on September 14th 2017 and the defendant told you himself that that was his chance your honor for premeditated not only do we have the comments made by the defendant months days and moments leading up to the time that he murdered Alex Thompson but we also know that the defendant was stalking Alex Thompson you heard from detective Carroll and from Oregon Bonderman today that in the two weeks leading up to mr. Thompson's death the defendant was seen outside of his warehouse late at night Your Honor four months the defendant was planning this murder and on September 14th 2017 he took his walking stick he saw his chance and he killed Alex Thompson Your Honor that walking stick that the defendant just told you today on the stand belongs to him was found at the murder scene next to Alex Thompson's body covered in his blood Your Honor there is no other item in this case that has mr. Thompson's skin cells on it mr. Thompson's blood in that amount on it and the defendants fingerprints and Your Honor we know that there was a blood smear on that walking stick that belonged to the defendant that is consistent with one that's on his shirt the defense is trying to have you believe that the blood that was on the defendants clothing was from a nosebleed but Your Honor what we heard in today's case is that the defendant was wearing a sweatshirt over his shirt when mr. Thompson was punched we have photographs of that shirt there's blood on it and not only is there blood spatter but there's of lettuce here the defense's expert told you himself that smear must have been from a long object and that long object was the defendants walking stick that he wiped on his shirt after he killed Alex Thompson because his walking stick was his prized possession your honor what you heard in today's case from the defendant is that every time that he got into a physical argument with Alex Thompson he just pushed it aside as in self-defense because your honor the defendant doesn't want you to know that for a year and months and days leading up to September 14th 2017 he got into physical arguments with Alex Thompson and he was combative on the stand today because he doesn't want you to know that his Walkingstick was found at the murder scene because he walked it there when he followed Alex Thompson when he saw his chance to act Your Honor we ask that you find Casey Davidson guilty as charged thank you yeah this the defense argument yes your honor yes hundreds of enraged protestors pockets of violent extremists fights that crossed the police line an overwhelmed police force weapons fashioned from branches and bricks objects being thrown and the sudden and violent punch to the face Your Honor this was not a political rally this was chaos it's our human nature that trying to make sense of chaos but sometimes you just can't good afternoon your honor once again my name is Jacob Oh Tony behalf the defense today the prosecution has attempted to make sense of the chaos resulting from the September 14th rally by pointing their fingers at the easiest suspect my client Casey Davidson throughout this trial you have heard them attempt to piece together bits of the chaos the crafted clear motive and means however today the defense has shown that too much reasonable doubt remains to know exactly who caused the death of Alex Thompson the prosecution case rests heavily on one support mr. Davidson's walking-stick found at the scene of the murder the prosecution would like you to believe that mr. Davidson was the only person in possession of his walking stick on the day of the rally however you have heard dr. Tory Lee testified that an unidentified pair of fingerprints was also found on the walking stick in a position similar to a person swinging a baseball bat you have heard today of that there is much chaos when Alex Thompson was punched corn - Casey Davidson mr. Thompson got hold of his walking stick and then he lost it Your Honor it's not unreasonable to think that one of the surrounding angry protestors perhaps even the one that punched mr. Thompson in the face got hold of this walking stick and assaulted him later Alex Thompson himself an ultra net had countless passionate and violent enemies nor is it unreasonable your honor that the heavily bleeding Thompson shuffled towards the restroom with a walking stick in hand and an unknown assailant got hold of the tree branch and killed him leaving behind an unidentified pair of fingerprints on the tree branch the prosecution seems to want to discount both of these theories putting an unreasonable amount of faith in the conclusions of Deven Morrison however all of Devin Morrison's conclusions carry significant reasonable doubt as for mr. Davidson's skin cells found under mr. Thompson's fingernails you have heard from both Casey Davidson and Morgan Bonderman that mr. Davidson and mr. Thompson were involved in an altercation just before mr. Thompson's death that left them both with small cuts and scratches according to dr. toreally skin cells from such an altercation can remain under the fingernails for four days additionally you've heard dr. Corey Lee testified that Alex Thompson's skin cells could have gone onto the finger onto the walking stick my apologies when he aggressively grabbed the walking stick and yanked it from mr. Davidson Your Honor although we are left with is no definitive murder weapon no definitive murderer and simply an abundance of chaos this is the reasonable doubt the prosecution would like you to ignore the prosecution's case also bases heavily on the blood found on mr. Davidson's clothes however they ignore the gushing goes bleed from mr. Thompson as testified by Haines Rodriguez Morgan Bonderman and Casey Davidson when mr. Thompson was a pup attacked in the park this nosebleed left large blood droplets on the grass as testified by Morgan ponder in and on the shoes of fame' Rodriguez who wasn't even an active participant in the complex your honor it's not unreasonable to think that when Alex Thompson grabbed and yanked away mr. Davidson's walking stick that blood gushed onto his clothes including a smear across his untuck shirt now Your Honor the prosecution also prompted Stan King Rodriguez who make the hasty assumption that mr. Davidson's statement here's my chance was somehow connected to mr. Thompson's murder despite mr. Rodriguez's implications today that these events were almost simultaneous remember in this witness statement it says I saw Thompson talked to someone for a few seconds and I rushed towards the back of the crowd in the direction of the restroom in a court a couple minutes later I heard Davidson say here's my chance these two instances were separated by minutes Your Honor it's illogical that these two instances are somehow connected it's far more logical that mr. Davidson was simply saying it was just a chance to buy batteries and as far as Morgan pondered Bonderman testimony that she saw mr. Davidson's car outside mr. Thompson's warehouse late at night your honor don't forget that mr. mr. Bannerman was unable to identify it Casey Davidson was even in the car and it was late and it was dark and she had only seen Casey Davidson twice before then and mr. Davidson is not even the only driver of this vehicle your honor count from 224 states that in cases dealing with circumstantial evidence in which one or more of two or more reasonable conclusions can be drawn in which one points towards innocence at one point towards Gillis you must choose the one that points towards innocence the prosecution wants you to believe that there's one simple interpretation to the evidence but your honor that's simply not the case hundreds of enraged protesters pockets of violent extremists fights across the police line an overwhelmed police force weapons fashioned from branches and bricks objects being thrown a sudden and violent punch to the face and the conviction of an innocent man Your Honor we cannot add to the chaos therefore we implore you to find Casey Davidson not guilty thank you the people have some rebuttal yes your honor Nancy what opposing counsel just read to you from Hayden Rodriguez's statement was not in evidence because we didn't hear it today on the witness stand Your Honor opposing counsel tried to tell you that we didn't prove motive but we don't have to but make no mistake your honor what we do know is that mr. Thompson started fights with the defendant mr. Thompson tried to swing a punch at the defendants friend and that made the defendant angry Your Honor even if we can't make sense of the chaos that opposing counsel is trying to tell you the evidence that we have in today's case can the defendants walking stick was at the crime scene his fingerprints were on it the victims skin cells were on it and there was a blood smear on his shirt and you can't explain that we asked that you find the defendant guilty as stuffed time has expired thank you and the defense thank you your honor Matt proceed yes here's my chance to clear a couple of the prosecution's points which have confused the court first though though we do not have to prove motive though the prosecution does not have to prove motive without motive why would someone kill Alex Thompson motive is very important to the to a murder case secondly the prosecution wants you to believe that the blood no blood being on out mr. Davidson bullhorn proves that mr. Davidson chose Alex Thompson however the bullhorn was on his shoulder his right shoulder and you saw that the blood was on the left side of his shirt this bullhorn would have been free from mr. Thompson's gushing nosebleed and third the prosecution talks a lot about the smear of cross mr. Davidson's shirt trying to show that kill Alex Thompson however during the chaos after mr. touch mr. Thompson was punch it's reasonable that this walking stick could merely smeared across his shirt as it was whisked away your honor therefore we employed that you defined Casey Davidson not guilty all right it's a very difficult case there's a lot of evidence both ways really if there's really no direct evidence or certainly no direct evidence specifically on the assault itself that resulted in the death of mr. Thompson there's a lot of circumstantial evidence and circumstantial evidence if it has two reasonable interpretations that's the law states that you must adopt the court must adopt the interpretation that points towards innocence and reject that that points towards guilt in this case there's a lot of circumstantial evidence and each piece should be evaluated to determine its reasonableness I would say after looking at all the evidence one could come probably fairly easily conclude that it's maybe likely the defendant is guilty but likely isn't beyond a reasonable doubt the proof must be beyond a reasonable doubt and with the law mandating that when circumstantial evidence principally is involved the court must accept the interpretation that points to innocence if the interpretations are reasonable and I find them to be so then the court must find jettisons and I am I am left with the reasonable doubt based on the totality so I will find a defendant not guilty well okay that's that so now it's you know whatever the finding is you know how these fact situations are drafted by these people that must lose a lot of sleep over doing this thing they could go almost any way on any given issue and your performances today we're very very good everybody and I'm not just saying that as a gratuitous complement either that was really good performances your objections were spot-on retorts we're well-thought-out and we'll be fast on your feet you came to you're able to articulate well what the response the appropriate response should be I was very impressed I kind of expected it though I when you get into the final round here I know from past experience that that you're good and this one was very very good I don't even have usually of comments on maybe what you could improve on and so on I really can't think of anything I think this performance was so well done I really can't comment projecting better you've all projected beautifully I can't comment on speaking too quickly those kinds of things that usually come up when you know you're nervous at a big function like this and something you'd put a semester into working on or whatever the time was and none of those things existed you spoke clearly and you didn't speak too quickly I I can't think of anything that I can say that would be a suggestion and how you could improve something now maybe the judges over here at Ken they're the ones that that really make the final decision I just call it on the the presentation as far as what the evidence turned out to be but they're the ones that are gonna be grading the whole the whole performance so any and all of you who performed today could would make terrific lawyers but realistic they know all of you aren't gonna become lawyers but what you've done this session and preparing for it will bode well whatever you're doing life that's for certain and thank you very much and now courts in recess my name's Terry Spence I used to be a prosecutor retired now I thought the strongest thing about this competition and I've either been coaching or scoring them I think this is my 19th year probably the strongest thing was the way the objections were handled usually what I see is an objection is made and it breaks down from there it doesn't go much farther now there was a lot of good back and forth so that was a real strong point about this competition as you go on to undergrad and law school and you get ready to try your first case one recommendation don't say strike that because the court reporter is going to take down the question you start at the house going to write down strike that and going to write down what you X so it makes no difference to say that it's a little pet peeve some of us have you don't need to say just a change in question but it was an excellent performance I thought it was quite close and congratulate you on all the hard work you did to learn all those difficult facts in the case [Applause] [Applause] [Music] so it's it's always been difficult became a winner each year and as you've heard this is our 20th year and I think every championship trial has been close very close and most of you were in the room and saw how close it was between the two teams the only lab to send one one team to the state finals so we have to pick a winner in right now though for second place this year [Applause] all day [Music] you

Channel: MCAETtv

Views: 317,923

Rating: 4.8092952 out of 5

Keywords: MCAET, Carmel High School, Palma High, Mock Trial, Mock Trial Finals, Monterey County, Courthouse, Carmel, Salinas, Monterey, law, American legal system, court trials, attorney, educational, role-playing, role play, judicial system, judge, case, legal, law school, legal practices, procedures, witness, on trial, murder case, guilty, innocent, crazy, punishment, composition, winners, champions, national, finalists, finals, lawyer, defence, prosecution, served, jury, legal eagle, student, class, School, Palma, 2018

Id: tJP45ObH1zk

Length: 119min 5sec (7145 seconds)

Published: Tue Apr 03 2018