Case Law
Chambers v. By the Book Publishing
The hearsay rule is only implicated where an out-of-court statement is being used for the truth of the matter asserted. If it only matters whether the out-of-court statement was made (not whether it was true), then the hearsay rule is not implicated.
State v. Singh
Venue and identification of the defendant are necessary elements of every criminal prosecution. Because Midlands does not permit motions for acquittal, the defense closing argument is the proper place to bring it to the court’s attention that the prosecutor has failed to prove these necessary elements of the charged offense.
702
Testimony by Expert Witnesses A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if the proponent demonstrates to the court that it is more likely than not that:
(a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;
(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
(c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and
(d) the expert’s opinion reflects a reliable application of the principles and methods to the facts of the case.
what needs to place before every round (name 5)
Captains Meeting
Pow Wow!
Set up camera
Choose timekeeper
Set up bench
Sound check
Fill out ballots
what are the times for everything
Round: 3 hrs
Directs: 30 mins each side
Crosses: 30 mins each side
Statements: 14 mins
State v. Rich
In a criminal case, the burden is proof beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to each and every element of the charged offense(s). The burden is on the State and never shifts to the defendant.
State v. B.F. De la Porta
Defendant offered statements of the investigating agent (“I know that you did this. You’re a mastermind and this is exactly the type of job that you would pull . . . and now you’re gonna be mine”) to show bias in the investigation. The State objected to hearsay, arguing the “truth value”— that which the Defense wished the jury to infer from the statement—was that the Agent was out to get the Defendant and that was the purpose for which the Defense was entering it.
Held: To be inadmissible as hearsay, an out-of-court statement must be (a) an assertion of fact (b) offered to establish the truth of that asserted fact.
No part of the rule against hearsay concerns itself with the “truth value” of an out-of-court statement beyond the fact asserted in the statement. The statement here contains several assertions of fact—that the investigating agent knew the Defendant was involved; that the Defendant was a mastermind and that the heist was of the sort the Defendant would commit; and that the Defendant would be his. Because the Defense disputed these assertions, it cannot be reasonably argued that any part of the Agent’s statement was offered to prove the truth of the matter(s) asserted. As such, the statement is definitionally not hearsay.
603 & 615
603 constructive swearing in
615 constructive sequestration
How is the call ordered in Captains Meeting (who gets 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th)
P, D, D, P
what possible theory's can the defense and prosecution can pursue
Defense: Negligent Homicide, or innocent
Prosecution: Knowingly, Purposefully, Recklessly
State v. Tamoe
A criminal defendant is never required to present evidence or offer an alternative theory of the crime. If a defendant does so, however, a prosecutor may note the defense’s failure to offer evidence in support of its theory of the case. Such comments do not imply that the burden of proof has shifted to the defense, nor do they necessarily constitute an infringement on a defendant's exercise of the right to remain silent.
Tarot Readers Association of Midlands v. Merrell Dow
In assessing reliability under Rule 702(C), judges should consider whether the theory or technique has been or can be tested, whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication, whether it has a known error rate, and whether it has gained widespread acceptance within the field. These factors, while relevant, are not necessarily dispositive. For example, lack of publication does not automatically foreclose admission; sometimes well-grounded but innovative theories will not have been published. There is no definitive checklist. Judges must make such assessments based on the totality of the circumstances.
611
Mode and Order of Examining Witnesses and presenting Evidence
a) Purpose
b) Scope
c) Leading
stip. 21
Ex. 32, the scoop, was recovered in Charlie Martin's home and tested positive for trace amounts of oxalic acid
Who is able to Identify Taren Rivera
Kaye, Martin, Reynolds, Hartley (kinda)
Kane Software Co. v. Mars Investigations
Midlands does not permit parties to use their experts as weapons in a trial by ambush or unfair surprise. Expert reports that are exchanged prior to trial must contain a complete statement of all opinions the expert will testify to and the basis and reasons for them, the facts or data considered by the expert in forming their opinions, and the expert’s qualifications. Experts are strictly prohibited from testifying on direct and redirect examination about any opinions or conclusions not stated in their report, and such testimony must be excluded upon a timely objection from opposing counsel. For example, an expert may not testify on direct or redirect examination that they formed a conclusion based on evidence that came out during trial that the expert did not previously review. However, if an expert is asked during cross examination about matters not contained in their report, the expert may freely answer the question as long as the answer is responsive. When an objection is made under Kane Software, the trial court should ask the proponent of the testimony to refer the trial court to where the proposed testimony is contained or otherwise referenced in the expert’s disclosure to ensure that the record is clear.
State v. Barrow
Defendant appeals his conviction for murder based on a violation of MPC §18-303(A)(2). Defendant argues there was insufficient evidence of “extreme recklessness” to convict him of murder. MPC §18-303(A)(2) prohibits the reckless killing of another person under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life. The legal concept behind this version of murder has been described as “death by a thousand cuts.” While the Court declines to adopt that phrase as a valid legal doctrine, the concept presented therein is apt. When a defendant commits a series of actions that may not, in and of themselves, evince a specific intent to kill the victim, that defendant can still be found guilty of murder if the cumulative harm of their actions shows an extreme indifference to the value of human life. For example, if a defendant purposefully or knowingly put poison in someone’s food, that defendant would be guilty of murder. But if, instead, that defendant mistakenly gave someone peanuts when the defendant knew that person had a peanut allergy, that defendant would be guilty of at least negligent homicide and perhaps manslaughter. However, if the defendant gave someone nonfatal doses of a toxic substance every day for an extended period of time and eventually the cumulative toxicity killed the person, the defendant would be guilty of murder under MPC §18-303(A)(2). Clearly, the repeated harmful actions by the defendant show greater culpability than accidental or unintentional poisoning. Because the actions of this defendant were a marked deviation from the standards of a law-abiding person, his actions were reckless, and the repeated injurious acts prove that the defendant manifested an extreme indifference to the value of human life.
705
Disclosing the Facts or Data Underlying an Expert’s Opinion: Unless the court orders otherwise, an expert may state an opinion – and give the reasons for it – without first testifying to the underlying facts or data. But the expert may be required to disclose those facts or data on cross-examination.
special instruction 22
Hartley-Marlowe Pairing. If the Prosecution team calls Dr. Hartley, then the Defense team may choose to call Dr. Marlowe as a witness. If the Prosecution team does not call Dr. Hartley, then the Defense team cannot call Dr. Marlowe as a witness.
stip. 15
Exhibit 14 is a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for Oxalic Acid from the Midlands Product Safety Commission. A PDF version of this document was lawfully recovered from Charlie Martin’s personal cell phone. An analysis of the document’s metadata by digital forensic technicians determined that the PDF document was downloaded and saved on Martin’s personal cell phone on January 8, 2025 at 9:46 am.
State v. Arbuckle
Defendant appealed his conviction for murder pursuant to MPC 18-303(A)(2). State argued that Defendant was guilty of murder because Defendant acted recklessly under circumstances that manifested an extreme indifference to human life, or what was known at common law as depraved heart murder. Here, Defendant argues that the State failed to show this heightened mens rea and instead only established recklessness, which is the mens rea for manslaughter. We agree. Proving only that a defendant acted in a way that ignored an unjustifiable risk of harm, including loss of life of another, is insufficient evidence of depraved heart murder. That is recklessness. Depraved heart murder requires evidence that (1) the defendant acted reckless and (2) did so in a way that shows the defendant had an extreme indifference towards the value of human life. The most common way in which the State can prove a Defendant violated MPC 18- 303(A)(2) is by proving the Defendant committed multiple reckless actions that had a high probability of causing severe bodily harm to another. Here, there was only one act of recklessness, and it was not sufficient proof, in itself, of an extreme indifference to life. Though nothing about this decision precludes one reckless act—if otherwise sufficient proof of an extreme indifference to life—from constituting depraved heart murder. Conviction overturned.
State v. Shepard
Defendant comes to the court for relief from judgment following a conviction for murder following a motor vehicle accident that caused the death of three individuals. Defendant was charged with murder after the prosecution put forth evidence that Defendant had a B.A.C. of .23, was speeding in excess of 20 mph over the speed limit and texting while driving. Defendant is asking this Court to overturn his conviction and remand for a new trial because Defendant believes the trial court improperly excluded evidence offered by the Defense regarding the Defendant’s claim that the victims would not have died but for the subsequent negligent actions of the hospital emergency room staff. Specifically, the Defendant sought to include evidence that the emergency room physicians failed to properly diagnose head traumas and did not order a CT scan. As a result, two of the three patients died as a result of a brain bleed. The trial court found that the actions of the emergency room department after the accident occurred were not relevant to assess the material fact of whether Defendant’s actions constituted an extreme indifference to the value of human life. Specifically, the trial court excluded the evidence because defendants “take their victims as they find them.” We agree. While there may be some cases in which the subsequent intervening actions of a third party may impact whether the Defendant knew or should have known that their own actions could result in death, in this case it is well established common sense that driving dangerously could result in danger to other drivers or, as is the case here, pedestrians
803 (1, 3, 4, 8, 18) (each one worth 100 pts)
(1) Present Sense Impression.
(3) Then-Existing Mental, Emotional, or Physical Condition.
(4) Statement Made for Medical Diagnosis or Treatment.
(8) Public Records.
(18) Statements in Learned Treatises, Periodicals, or Pamphlets.
What is Rob Armstrong's height and weight or where can you find his height and weight (list all exhibits)
6ft 3in, 205 lbs. (Ex. 3, 4, 5)
stip. 19
If Dr. Hartley is not called then Ex. 3 & 4 are pre-admitted