High School Mock Trial 2015 Emerson Jones v. Buckeye Juvenile Correctional Institute Errata Sheet 10/14/14

Transcription

1 High School Mock Trial 2015 Emerson Jones v. Buckeye Juvenile Correctional Institute Errata Sheet 10/14/14 1) What is the burden of proof of this year s case? Emerson Jones v. Buckeye Juvenile Correctional Institute is a civil case, and so the burden of proof is preponderance of the evidence. 2) There are two different versions of page 41 of the case file, Special Instructions. Which is correct? The version of page 41 that includes 5 special instructions (as opposed to 3), is the correct version. The correct version reads as follows: Special Instructions 1. All rules included in the Simplified Ohio Rules of Evidence in the case materials will apply. 2. Exhibit C Map of Buckeye Juvenile Correctional Institution is not drawn to scale. 3. The Ohio Administrative Code regarding the use of force in the Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections is attached to this case file. The parties agree this governs the Ohio Youth Services Correctional Facilities. 4. For the purposes of this mock trial simulation, it is stipulated that the state of Ohio has waived their sovereign immunity and consents to suit. 5. This trial is focused exclusively on the 8th Amendment issues; it is not intended to address 11th Amendment immunity, 42 U.S.C. 1983, or issues of scope of employment. 3) The date on Exhibit D is July Was this exhibit, a memo on use of force by correctional officers, released before or after the central incident to the case, the food fight? For purposes of the case, the memo was distributed before the food fight incident. Assume that the correctional officers knew and understood its contents prior to reacting to the food fight. 4) One of the cases included, Greeno v. Daley, is a Seventh Circuit case, while the rest are Supreme Court cases. In the Northern District of Buckeye, is the Greeno case binding or only persuasive legal precedent? The Greeno case itself (and any cited 7 th circuit precedent) should be interpreted as persuasive, not binding. However, where Supreme Court precedent is cited as

2 rule of law, the cited precedent is binding. Note, however, that it is only the cited portion which is material to the case at hand, and teams should not interpret this as a directive to view the cited cases in their entirety. 10/28/14 1) Who has the burden of proof in this year s case? The Plaintiff, Emerson Jones, has the burden of proof. 2) There is no medical wing present. Is it missing or not on the map because it does not exist? The medical wing/infirmary is located on the second floor of BJCI, and is therefore not on the map included as an exhibit, which is a map of the first floor of the building. 3) Are there intentionally no doors to the holding cells? Or an exterior door from the kitchen to outside? Please assume that there are doors to the holding cells, but no exterior door from the kitchen to the outside 4) The sample score sheet included the case file notes that a 10 point deduction will be the penalty for a rules violation, but the competition rules say it is a 5 point deduction. Which is correct? The competition rules are correct a 5 point deduction will be the penalty for rules violations. 5) Emerson Jones has stated a desire to play for the Cleveland Cavaliers, however, the gender pronouns for Emerson suggest that Emerson could be either a female or a male. Does Emerson s desire to play for the Cavaliers mean the character is male? Emerson Jones can be a male or a female. Emerson s desire is to play professional basketball, instead of for a particular team. 6) Pages 42 and 53 of the case materials indicate that we are in United States District Court for the Northern District of Buckeye. But page 43 indicates that we are in United States District Court for the Central District of Ohio. Which District Court are we to assume we re in? This case is being heard in the fictional U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Buckeye. 7) There appears to be a discrepancy within the Defense Team in a key fact about this case. Nurse Rodgers (Defense Witness) says in her

3 statement in lines "I reviewed our patient charts, and it does say I examined Mr./Ms. Jones' wrist that day" (i.e., the day of incident in cafeteria). However, the Defense Pre-Trial Brief (In section titled "Plaintiff Receives Appropriate Medical Attention," p. 55) states "Plaintiff did not request further medical treatment at that time, and s/he returned to his/her cell without visiting the infirmary." Which is correct? Replace the word without on page 55 to after. 8) In Emerson Jones statement at lines 50-62, the paragraph implies that his pants were replaced on the day of the food fight ( Well that day, my pants ripped and I needed new pants. ). By contrast, in the statement of Casey Burgundy it states that Jones pants were replaced 2 days before the food fight (lines Two days prior to the fight, Jones tore his BCJIissued pants. We were running low on clean pants so we had to issue Jones pants that were one size too big. ). Which statement is correct? That these two statements do not agree is neither intentional nor unintentional. Your students may choose to bring this discrepancy up at trial if they feel it serves their side s interest, as both Emerson and BJCI have an interest in the story appearing favorable to their position. 11/11/14 1) Different depositions and Exhibit B disagree on which wrist Emerson Jones broke (e.g. I ve tried shooting with my left hand (36-37) and Jones seemed to favor his/her left wrist ( ) implying that his/her right wrist is injured (36-37) but I ordered x-rays of Mr./Ms. Jones [sic] left wrist (206) and patient presents with complaints of pain in left wrist (Exhibit B) indicating that his/her left wrist was injured. Which is correct? Emerson s left wrist is fractured. Emerson s testimony in lines and Nurse Rodgers s testimony in line 206 is consistent that Emerson s left wrist was injured, and he/she has difficulty both dribbling and shooting with his/her left hand due to the injury. Our use of the word favor is consistent with the common meaning in medical terminology to use gently due to injury. The implication that Emerson s right wrist is injured is erroneous. 2) Is the defendant the jail facility, or is it the individuals? If it s the jail facility, wouldn t it actually be the State of Ohio instead of the facility? Per the special instructions on page 37, special instruction #4 states that it is stipulated that the state of Ohio has waived their sovereign immunity and consents to suit. Furthermore, Buckeye Juvenile Correctional Institution operates on a private contract, so the institution is the facility for the purposes of this case. 3) Emerson Jones claims that (s)he was incarcerated for four years (5) at BJCI, but Casey Burgundy says (s)he was serving an eighteenmonth sentence (648). Which is correct?

4 Emerson was incarcerated for four years. 4) Emerson Jones claims that (s)he was release one month before [his/her] 21st birthday (15), but Casey Burgundy seems to indicate that BJCI cannot hold inmates until after they are 18 as the juvenile system only has jurisdiction over them until they turn eighteen ( ). Was Jones being held at BJCI under the adult system? No, Emerson was being held at BJCI under the juvenile system. Juvenile jurisdiction refers to adjudication of a case, and Emerson s case was adjudicated in the juvenile system before his/her eighteenth birthday. Individuals can be held in juvenile detention up until the age of 21. 5) When Jamie Lawrence s testimony refers to Emerson Jones s medical records (236), does this mean/include the document marked as Exhibit B? Yes, Emerson s medical records include Exhibits A and B. 6) Did Jones see Dr. Lawrence 3 weeks after the food fight or 3 months after the food fight? Dr. Lawrence saw Emerson three weeks after he/she was injured, per line 198 of Dr. Lawrence s testimony. Emerson s visit to Dr. Lawrence was three months ago from the date that he/she testified, per lines of Dr. Lawrence s testimony. 7) This case takes place in the state of Buckeye, and that was cleared up nicely on the Errata of 10/28/14. However, part of the case materials deal specifically with the state of Ohio (examples include Exhibit D and the Ohio Revised Code). Moreover, the Amendment and case law that we're dealing with obviously apply to the United States. I'm operating on the assumption that the ORC, the US Constitution and the US Supreme Court cases operate on the state of Buckeye. Can it be explicitly stated in the errata that Buckeye is subject to the laws and Constitutions of Ohio and the United States? Yes the state of Buckeye is subject to the laws and Constitutions of Ohio and the United States as provided in the case materials. 8) In response and further questions about the clarification of the change in wording of the defense brief regarding the nurse's testimony, was the x-ray then not taken on the day of the food fight, the first day Emerson was taken to the infirmary? Instead then, are we to interpret that the x-ray was actually taken two to three days after the food fight? That is the implication with the change in the wording of the defense brief and how it affects the interpretation of the nurse's statement, lines Emerson s testimony states that a few days after the fight the pain still had not gone away, so s/he asked to see the doctor. It was at this time that the x-ray took place (lines ). Nurse Rodgers s statement is consistent, when she says

5 that a few days later the Warden let her know Emerson was complaining of pain, so, she examined him ( ) and then when she noticed swelling she took x- rays ( ). 9) For Exhibit B what is the Date? Was Jones s follow-up visit to the infirmary the day after the food fight? The statements simply say a couple of days later. The date of Exhibit B is three days after the food fight. 11/25/14 1) Can the copy of a portion of the Ohio Administrative Code be introduced as an exhibit, or is it meant solely for reference during openings and closings? Only the specified exhibits (A, B, C, and D) may be introduced at trial in the interest of fairness and consistency across trials. This is per rule I. D. 13 ( Only exhibits that are part of the case materials may be used as visual aids ). 2) Lawrence s deposition indicates that Exhibit A was taken by him/her, however one of your previous errata question responses (11/11/14, number 5) seems to indicate that Exhibit A was part of Emerson Jones s medical records from the BJCI. Which is correct? Exhibit A, the X-Ray of Emerson s wrist, was taken by Nurse Rodgers at BJCI. 3) The various depositions and Exhibit B disagree on when Mr./Ms. Jones visited the infirmary for the first time: for example, Emerson says that he did not visit the infirmary for a few days (113) and Exhibit B was previously clarified (errata number 9 on 11/11/14) to have been written 3 days after the food fight, but Nurse Rodgers indicates that her patient charts say that [she] examined Mr./Ms. Jones [sic] wrist (546) on the day of the food fight. Which is correct? The timeline of events is as follows: After the food fight, Emerson, along with several other inmates, was taken to the infirmary. All the inmates received medical clearance quickly. After a few (3) days, Emerson kept complaining about his/her wrist, and was taken for further examination, at which point the wrist was X-Rayed. None of the witness statements disagree on this timeline. However, they may portray the character of these events differently 4) Does the plaintiff have to prove both violations of the 8th Amendment? Or just one? Does the defense have to disprove both or just one? (Guard's/Nurse's) The plaintiff must prove both violations of the 8 th Amendment. 5) On P 82, when Blair says "if Emerson has permanent arm damage, it's his/her fault" (Ln ) Blair does know that Emerson was injured in the

6 wrist...so was this a typo? Or does he really think that Emerson had arm damage? This was not a typo Blair was simply using the collective term arm to refer to Emerson s inability to play basketball (Lines ). 6) Other corrections in the errata sheet make it clear that Emerson did in fact go to the infirmary after the fight. However, a large part of Blair's testimony has to do with his belief that Emerson didn't go the doctor ("Emerson didn't even go see the doctor so I don't see how s/he is claiming extreme injury"); does this mean that Blair is just mistaken, or was this written before it was determined that Emerson did go the infirmary? In other words, how are we to deal with this part of his testimony? (Disregard it, call him out for his lack of knowledge, etc.) Blair s testimony is not inconsistent with the timeline referenced in Question 3 above. Emerson went to the infirmary on the day of the fight, was seen by Nurse Rodgers, and was released without treatment. 7) When Doctor Lawrence references exhibit A on line 206, is the x-ray Dr. Lawrence's that he/she had done or is the x-ray the one BJCI performed? (See errata question 2) 8) On lines 182 to 186 of Jamie Lawrence's statement, he refers to Jones' attorney (a prominent personal injury and civil rights attorney in the area). Are we to assume that the student attorneys on the plaintiff side are this person? Or is this attorney a different person? The student attorneys on the plaintiff side may be the prominent personal injury and civil rights attorney if that complements their trial strategy. It is up to them! 12/9/14 1) Could you clarify Errata post #4 from November 25 th that indicates the plaintiff must prove both violations of the 8 th Amendment? If the plaintiff has the burden of proof on both issues, then this is procedurally inaccurate, as in a real action against BJCI, the plaintiff would only have to prove one, not both, violations of his/her rights. While it is correct that in an actual trial, the plaintiff would not need to prove both 8 th Amendment violations, for the sake of fairness and consistency, the plaintiff will need to address both violations. Given that this is a mock trial engaging limited rules of evidence and limited witness testimony, it has already significantly departed in several ways from an actual trial, and also will for the purposes of plaintiff s burden of proof. 2) Some clarification on Question 2 from 11/25 On line 206 of Dr. Lawrence s testimony, it states that Dr. Lawrence ordered an x-ray of Emerson s wrist and cites Exhibit A. Wouldn t that then make Exhibit A an x-ray taken by Dr. Lawrence instead of Nurse Rodgers?

7 The first sentence of Line 206 (Dr. Lawrence s witness statement) should be altered to read I reviewed x-rays of Mr./Ms/ Jones left wrist. With this alteration, it is consistent to read that the x-rays Dr. Lawrence reviewed were those that were taken at BJCI. Nurse Rodgers and Dr. Lawrence therefore looked at the same x-ray (Exhibit A), and Nurse Rodgers concluded it indicated a sprain, while Dr. Lawrence concluded it was a fracture. Dr. Lawrence did a follow up MRI in his/her facility after consulting the x-ray. Please move forward with your theory of the case on these facts. 3) Given the timeline that is posted in Errata Question 3 from 11/25, Exhibit B seems to be contradictory, as it notes that the patient Emerson Jones returned the day after his/her initial visit and that is inconsistent with the timeline. There was a typographical error on Exhibit B it should read Patient returns three days after initial visit instead of Patient returns day after initial visit Please move forward using Exhibit B to say three days. 4) Exhibit B uses the pronoun him for Emerson Jones. Is Emerson a male or a female? Emerson, as all of the witnesses in the case, is gender neutral and can be played by a male or a female student. 5) Rule 901 states that an exhibit may not be introduced without evidence to prove that it is what its proponent claims. However, Trial Procedure section I indicates that both parties have already agreed that all exhibits are admissible. What, if anything, must be established before an exhibit can be introduced? It is true that both parties have already agreed that all exhibits are admissible. However, the fact that an exhibit could be admissible does not excuse the requirement to establish a foundation for the exhibit, which is what Rule 901 calls for. If you would like clarification on what this might look like at trial, please ask your legal advisor, or refer to OCLRE s mock trial tutorial video ( and watch from 8:40 to 9:15 to see how evidence is typically introduced. 6) In general, can we assume that witnesses are aware of any errata answers relating to their testimony? In other words, can witnesses include facts from the errata sheet in their testimony on direct and cross examination? Yes, please operate under the assumption that witnesses are aware of errata answers relating to their testimony. Witnesses may include facts from the errata sheet in their testimony on direct and cross examination.