Show:
Avery
Addison & Taylor
Randy Johnson
Billie Stoneridge
Morgan Reynolds
100
Avery is asked for her background and she says, "I once revealed a lemonade stand falsely advertising their powdered lemonade as natural and freshly squeezed. Man, those Hardy Boys books I read really helped me become a true detective."
Objection, Your Honor, under Rule 402 this evidence is irrelevant to this case. Response: Your Honor, I am simply trying to establish that discoveries made by the witness are legitimate due to her experience in investigation procedures. Response: Your Honor, the discoveries made by a 14-year-old who is now 27 has no bearing on this case and is therefore inadmissable under Rule 402. The facts she is presenting are not of consequence to the determination of this case.
100
On cross examination, the Prosecution asks Addison whether he has bias against Palestinians due to his Israeli background.
Objection, Your Honor, under Rule 404 character testimony, other than that which proves truthfulness or untruthfulness, is inadmissable. Response: Testimony of bias is authorized by Rule 616A.
100
"I was a field hockey coach in the early 2000's, even though I never played the sport."
Objection, Your Honor, under Rule 402 this testimony is irrelevant and therefore inadmissable. Response: Your Honor, I'm merely establishing the foundation for Ms. Johnson's school involvement and devotion to her job as an educator and mentor. Response: I withdraw my objection, Your Honor.
100
Billie Stoneridge testifies Hayley's parents provided him a list of Hayley's friends to interview.
It's too early to object! Wait until he says what those friends told him. Then you might get in hearsay.
100
The attorney crossing Morgan says, "Isn't it true that you were jealous of the jocks like Adam and debutants like Hayley?"
Objection, Your Honor, under Rule 404, this character evidence is inadmissable. Response: I'm trying to lay the foundation to prove truthfulness or untruthfulness, which is allowed under Rule 404. Response: The answer to this question will tell us whether Morgan felt feelings of jealousy toward groups of people, Your Honor, but jealousy does not make someone a liar. I move for this testimony to be stricken from the record.
200
Avery testifies about her journalism degree, years of experience, and investigation involving cell phone data that was eventually dropped by the prosecution. She indicates she now has experience interpreting cell phone data, which helped her open her own business. The Defense offers Avery Thompson to the court as an expert in cell phone data technology and investigative procedures.
Objection, Your Honor, under Rule 702, a witness is considered an expert due to specialized knowledge, skill, training, or education. I'd hardly consider a bachelor's degree and a few lucky breaks playing detective in high school qualify this witness as an expert.
200
Addison is serving as an expert in radio frequency engineering. While answering a question about the Tower Proximity Report and Drive Test Addison completed for the original trial, Addison says, "The prosecution's directive wasn't sufficient because they did not ask me for an exhaustive list of towers that could be pinged from Olentangy Park."
Objection, Your Honor, Mr. Waranowitz has been declared an expert in radio frequency engineering, and Opposing Counsel was directed to limit his questioning to only that field. Whether or not the Prosecution's directive was sufficient is not for him to determine as a non-legal expert. Could also object w/speculation because Addison is speculating as to the adequacy of the prosecution's job. Response: Though Mr. Waranowitz's expertise is in radio frequency engineering, he has served as a legal expert regularly and around the country. I believe this background qualifies him to determine whether the prosecution's directive 19 years ago was limited in scope.
200
On Direct, Defense asks, "Did you throw away the sign in sheet after homework help that day?"
Objection, Your Honor, contrary to Rule 611c, counsel is leading the witness. Response: Your Honor, Ms. Johnson is free to answer whatever she wishes. My question does not presuppose an answer. Response: Rule 2 of the Ohio Mock Trial Rules of Evidence do not require presupposition to be considered leading.
200
Billie Stoneridge says, "Adam was nervous when speaking with me."
Objection, Your Honor, the detective has no personal knowledge of what Adam was feeling during the interview and under Rule 602 this is inadmissable. Response: I'll rephrase, Your Honor. Recalling your interview with Adam Smith on September 19, Detective Stoneridge, in your opinion, did Adam do or say anything that led you to understand that he was nervous?
200
Morgan is asked whether he noticed any strange behavior coming from Hayley before her death. He says, "Adam said she was acting like a stalker by overtexting him and following him everywhere."
Objection, Your Honor, this is hearsay and is inadmissable under Rule 802. Response: The witness is testifying to what the declarant told him. Counter: Opposing counsel asked the witness what behavior HE witnessed, not Adam.
300
Avery testifies, "Everybody just knew he was guilty, but I was never quite sure."
Objection, Your Honor, this is hearsay under Rule 801 because the witness is providing an out of court statement made by someone other than the declarant Response: Your Honor, I'm trying to establish that Avery was not biased when she conducted her investigation, so what everyone thought is immaterial to the point I'm trying to make. OR they could say that this was a discovery as part of her "regularly conducted activity" Response: Still, the witness is testifying that "everyone" KNEW he was guilty, and we can't exactly call "everyone" into this courtroom for verification. Under rule 801 this is hearsay and I move for it to be stricken from the record.
300
Witness is asked a question on re-direct that was not raised in cross examination
Objection, Your Honor, Opposing Counsel is asking the witness about matters not raised during cross examination, which is not allowed under Rule 2 of the Ohio Mock Trial Rules of Evidence.
300
Asked on cross, "Why didn't the detective return your phone calls?"
Objection, speculation, Your Honor, Ms. Johnson has no personal knowledge to answer this question and cannot give an opinion under Rule 701. Response: I'll rephrase it, Your Honor. In your opinion, why didn't the detective return your phone calls? Can you object again??? Discuss!
300
The first question on Direct is, "What leads you to believe that Adam committed this crime?"
Objection, Your Honor, lack of foundation. Response: I'll lay that foundation now, Your Honor.
300
Morgan is asked why Adam asked for his help, and Morgan shrugs and says, "Probably because I have experience as a park ranger and could advise him on where to bury the body."
Objection, Your Honor, speculation.
400
Not an expert, Avery testifies about her drive test, "I was unable to drive the route in the same (or less) time than the prosecution's time frame except when a storm knocked out all the traffic signals, which gave me flashing yellow lights to drive right through." The Defense then asks her whether she thinks Adam killed Hayley and she says, "There's no way he could have done it based on the Prosecution's timeline."
Objection, Your Honor, under Rule 701 this is improper opinion testimony by a lay witness. Response: Under Rule 701, she can give her opinion that is based on her rational inference based on her personal experience. She can give this inference based on driving the route. Response: The witness was just asked whether Adam killed Hayley, which cannot be inferred from the drive test experience.
400
What if Taylor Lewis is asked whether or not Addison Waranowitz had the Tower Location Key available to him?
Objection: Under Rule 602, this witness has no personal knowledge to answer this question and it should be inadmissable.
400
On cross, "Isn't it true, Ms. Johnson, that you have previously been in trouble with the IRS for failing to pay your taxes, which is a duty of citizenship you are now claiming to value so much?"
Objection, Your Honor, this testimony, under Rule 404 does not relate to truthfulness or untruthfulness and is not admissable. Response: With all due respect, Your Honor, she provided false information to the IRS, and this goes directly to truthfulness or untruthfulness.
400
Billie Stoneridge testifies that Hayley's diary revealed she was scared of Adam 10 days before her death.
Objection, Your Honor, this is inadmissable hearsay under Rule 802. Response: Your Honor, under Rule 803(6), this is a record of a regularly conducted activity and is therefore admissable. Could also respond with he's not testifying to a specific statement; he is just testifying to what it revealed. Counter: If it's a regularly conducted business activity, they need to show that by testimony and Hayley Leigh isn't here to testify to that. Also, a diary isn't a report, memorandum or data compilation as defined in Rule 803(6)
500
Avery is asked to recall her interview with Morgan Reynolds and she says, "Morgan said Adam begged him to help get rid of Hayley's body."
Objection, Your Honor, this is Hearsay under Rule 802 because the witness is sharing an out of court statement made by someone other than the declarant. Ms. Mich: There are many responses here, so I'm going to let the legal experts take it from here!!
500
The first question Taylor is asked on the stand is, "What did your drive test reveal?"
Objection, Your Honor, opposing counsel has failed to lay the foundation for this question. Response: Your Honor, I will now lay that foundation (do you apologize if you jumped forward in your memorization?)
500
Asked on Cross, "Isn't it true the gossip around school was that you weren't very good at your job?"
Objection, Your Honor, under Rule 404 character evidence testimony cannot be given unless to prove truthfulness or untruthfulness. Whether Ms. Johnson performed her job effectively is not related to her truthfulness and should therefore be inadmissable. Could also object using hearsay b/c it's gossip. Response: Your Honor, this witness is claiming she followed protocol with regard to a critical piece of evidence, the sign in sheet, but it was never obtained. I'm asking this to establish whether the sign-in sheet was never obtained as a result of her mishandling her job procedures.
500
Detective Stoneridge is asked, "What was the cause of Hayley's death?"
Objection, Your Honor, lack of personal knowledge. Detective Stoneridge only knows what the coroner told him, he has no direct knowledge of this. Response: This is allowed under 803(6) as part of a regularly conducted business activity. The coroner's report shows the cause of death a homicide by strangulation.