CACJ Questions and Answers

Transcription

1 CACJ Questions and Answers A NUMBER OF THE QUESTIONS POSED BY TEAMS HAS RESULTED IN THE REPLACEMENT OF SOME OF THE PAGES TO THE MATERIALS. Witness List and Trial Stipulations (pages 005 and 006) have been amended and replaced. The Medical Examiner s report has been corrected and pages have been corrected. (Note: the corrections were limited to minor errors where PDF/OCR problems resulted in fractions appearing as letters etc.) Page 150 has been corrected and replaced. The Jury Instructions (pages ) have been replaced. (The full instruction regarding the gun use allegation is included; a circumstantial evidence instruction has been added.) Exhibit 1 has been replaced. 1. Who can provide foundation for the Facebook page of James Trundle? There is no foundation needed. We have added to Stipulation Number 8 which now reads: The Facebook page (Exhibit 10) is the defendant s and bears his photograph; the parties so stipulate. The photo was posted by the defendant to his Facebook page on June 1, It is further stipulated that the gun is a 9 mm Luger. 2. Were all witnesses present during the reading of the preliminary hearing testimony to the judge and jury? No. Witnesses are excluded during testimony or the reading of testimony. But attorneys have likely shared all relevant testimony, all relevant articles, reports and exhibits with their experts in preparation for the expert s testimony. 3. Since stipulation 9 indicates that the supplemental police report regarding James Trundle s prior police stop is deemed admitted, and both the judge and jury have received the information contained in the report, this means that defense counsel cannot move to exclude it through a motion in limine, nor object to its introduction during trial, correct? That is correct. Normally police reports are not admitted into evidence. However, in this case the parties have stipulated to the report s admission and no officer will be called to testify. 4. Since stipulation 9 indicates that the supplemental police report regarding James Trundle s prior police stop is deemed admitted, and both the judge and jury have received the information contained in the report, this also means that we can reference it freely during prosecution's closing argument even if it is not mentioned at any prior point during the prosecution s case in chief, correct? Correct. 1

2 5. Can we presume that Pat Black and Lauren Chavis have seen everything contained within the problem and exhibits 1-10, and ask them about it? If not, what exact materials within the problem and/or exhibits have Black and Chavis reviewed, respectively? See Answer to Question How is it that Corey Michaels went to medical school in Chicago during , but also worked as an Anesthesia Technician from in Mountain View, California? The CV for Dr. Michaels has been corrected; page 150 has been replaced. 7. Per the stipulations, can either side freely reference anything that was either entered into evidence during the preliminary hearing or is already deemed admitted and has been shown to the judge and jury, in closing arguments even if not brought up at any prior point during trial? Yes. See Question and Answer to NO Will a separate instruction for circumstantial evidence be provided as an amendment? If not, are teams able to freely reference circumstantial evidence in summation? Yes, the Jury Instructions have been corrected to include an instruction on Circumstantial Evidence. 9. Are the markings made by Mr/s Monk at the preliminary hearing on People s exhibit 2 considered hearsay? Federal Rules of Evidence apply. 10. Will the defense be allowed to sit a 5 th member in as the defendant? We have added a stipulation (see Stipulation 15). 11. On page 69, the witness (Monk) marks an s on exhibit 2 to identify where Lau was after he was shot. However, on page 83, s is used to mark where the shooter was standing after Lao was shot. Which S is correct? See new Stipulation NO. 18: The S appearing on page 69 of the transcript should be an X. On page 83, the witness answer should read (on line 5): Okay, I ll add a red S. The witness' placement of an "X" referenced on page 71 of the transcript is consistent with the "X" (as corrected) on page 69. The "S" referenced by the witness on page 84 is consistent with the "S" referenced on page 83. No transcript pages have been replaced; instead the parties stipulate to Drew Monk's placement and significance of the letters "X" and "S" on Exhibit 2: "X" is the location of the decedent Lau, "S" is the location of the shooter/first shot. 12. (2) On pages in the cross examination of Monk, Monk agrees that Monk asked the police if the shooter was named James and that he had a cousin who is familiar with him and the cousin mentioned several names including James and then Monk remembered his name and face. But in the police interview on p. 35 it 2

3 says nothing about a cousin and nothing about originally asking if he was James. Are we missing a statement from Monk? Nothing is missing. 13. There s talk of the shooting occurring east/west. Which is east and which is west according to google maps? Is it safe to assume west is left (uphill) and east is right (downhill) on Main Street on exhibit 9? If you look closely at the upper right hand corner of Exhibit 9, Google has supplied a compass. North is pointed up, toward the top of the page, which means that Main Ave. runs east-west (4 th Street is to the east; 5 th Street is to the west). 14. On p. 130 Dr. Michaels labels gunshot wound number 7 s entry as G and number 8 as K. Then on p. 132 entry would for 7 is k and 8 is g. The autopsy report aligns with what Dr. Michaels says on p Is this a mistake in writing or is it impeachable? Apologies. In the original proceedings, which were very lengthy, Dr. Michaels corrected the testimony between what is currently set out on pages The testimony on page 132 is the corrected testimony. The error was caught and corrected by Dr. Michaels. Do not impeach. Page 132 is correct. 15. Do we expect that Dr. Michaels would be familiar with article on p. 231 Practical Pathology of GSWs? See Answer to Question 2 above. 16. On exhibit 3, we count 10 evidence markers marking casings. On "ex 8 we count 9 evidence markers marking casings. On exhibit 9, there are 8 location markings of casings. How many casings are there at the scene? Exhibit 9, as noted in its title, depicts the locations of casings. Other exhibits depicting evidence markers may include items other than or in addition to casings. 17. In the live round referred to in Lawrence Shapiro s testimony in the preliminary hearing on p. 106 (lines 9-10)-107, where did the live round cartridge come from? Was it found on the ground or was it from prior stop of Mr. Trundle? It was found at the scene among the casings and it is not from the prior stop of Mr. James Trundle. 18. On exhibit 1, these are not the exact group of photos shown to Monk, are they? It contains two people in orange and there are no dates on the photos. We can determine who is James based on the FB photo, but who is David and who is Joshua? What do we make of this new group of photos? Who was in the original group of photos that Monk walked by and who was in the array handed to him in the car? Exhibit 1 has been amended to include names. The Up the Hill grouping as depicted in Exhibit 1 was displayed on the wall at the Police Department when Drew Monk was first interviewed; Drew Monk saw this Exhibit. The next day, the police compiled a photo lineup with 6 photos. This has not been provided to you 3

4 but has been described accurately by Dr. Chavis. The photo of Defendant in the photo lineup is the same (with dates added) as the picture displayed in Exhibit 1. (See Stipulation 7; it has been amended.) 19. Is the diagram on p. 157 Pat Black s diagram? Yes. 20. Are teams allowed to use projectors to publish exhibits to the jury, rather than using printed enlargements? In the interest of easier and more efficient travel, our team has thought about bringing a projector to show any exhibits to the jury. Only the exhibits included in the fact pattern would be projected, subject to proper foundation of course. And we could also project any exhibit from the fact pattern for the opposing team, if they would like. We regret that we cannot offer projectors. Most teams bring the exhibits with them. However, you may prefer to send the electronic files to a business near the Civic Center and have it printed here. Up to you. Do please, review the Rules regarding demonstrative evidence. (Rule 22, page 261 of the materials.) Enlargements may be used and you may mark them with pen, highlighter or any other writing device. 21. Are the judges going to be clear that the supplemental report and prelim transcript are admitted into evidence? Will teams be expected to read in portions of this evidence, if they plan on making reference to it in closing? Yes, we will so inform the judges. You will not be expected to read in portions of this evidence. You may use it in argument and in accordance with Federal Rules of Evidence. 22. Is it stipulated that all experts have read all the articles included in the fact pattern? See Answer to Question Can we assume that the medical examiner has read the entire preliminary hearing transcript? See Answer to Question The problem makes reference to both a Main St. and Main Ave. are these the same street? Yes. Main Street is an error. It should be Main Ave. 25. Is Lau s girlfriend named Rosa or Rosie? There are no corrections to be made to the record. 26. Will an actor/volunteer be provided at the competition to portray the Defendant (to sit behind the Defendant s table with defense counsel)? If not, may the trial team recruit a volunteer to sit behind defense s table and pose as Defendant James Trundle? 4

5 Please see Stipulation NO. 15 (added). 27. Throughout the Problem, Monk insists that on the night of the murder, Lau was chasing Joshua, and James was the one with the gun. On page 37, Monk confirms that Joshua was the one being chased by Lau, but then on page 38, Monk says that the man in Lineup Photo # 2 (who is Joshua) looks like the guy that was being chased by the one with the gun (the one with the gun being James, not Lau). Was that intentional? We are not positive that we understand the question, but perhaps that is because you believe that Lineup Photo is part of the evidence in this case. It is not. See Question and Answer No. 18 and Stipulation 7 (as amended). Hopefully this answers your question. 28. On the exhibit photograph which depicts Lau s gunshot wounds to his head, the card next to Lau s head has the wrong case number (from 2007, not 2015). Is this on purpose? No, this is a mistake. The date should be The medical examiner s name is Corey Michaels. On his résumé, under the list of articles he has published, a few entries state the author as E. Michaels not C. Michaels. Is this intentional? No, this is a mistake. All references should be C Michaels. 30. Many entries in the M.E. s report have transposed figures and numbers. Is this supposed to indicate that the M.E. is dyslexic? No. These minor errors have been corrected in the materials. 31. The M.E. misstates Lau s age as 28, not 27. Is this intentional? No. It s a mistake. The police report indicates year of birth is 86; M.E. s report states year of birth is 87. So, the age is of little to no importance here; you may use either. If an issue, secure an agreement from opposing team. 32. The M.E. misstates Lau s address as 110 Northpoint instead of 110 Westpoint. Is this intentional? The business address of the M.E. is 110 Northpoint. Same number but different streets entirely. (Unless we ve missed something) Truly, this is of no importance to the facts. 33. In her testimony, Monk first states that she is 24, then states that she is 26. Was that intentional? It s a typo. Monk is Can we use any of the reports (or part of the reports) in demonstratives? See Question and Answer No

6 35. Can we use zoomed-in portions of exhibits, reports, and/or jury instructions in demonstratives? See Question and Answer No What materials can we assume the witnesses are familiar with? See Question and Answer No Is Jury Instruction 3.00 complete as written? It reads, ʺJury Instruction 3.00: If you find the defendant guilty of the crime murder, you must then decide whether the People have proved the additional allegation that the defendant personally used a firearm during the commission of the charged crime. To prove this allegation, the People must prove that: 1. The defendant personally discharged a firearm during the commission of that crime;ʺ The Jury Instructions have been amended/corrected and now include the remaining portion of this Instruction plus a Circumstantial Evidence Instruction raised in another question. 38. Can the article that has been named in the problem be used for direct, or to impeach on cross, even if the text of the article is not in the casefile? In other words, have these articles been ʺprovidedʺ to us within the meaning of the competition's rules? The NCTAC team is uncertain of the question s meaning. If you are asking if you can use articles cited within the article provided, the answer is NO. You are limited to the articles as written/provided in the materials. Also, see Stipulation 14 regarding Learned Treatises and Federal Rules of Evidence. 39. Are there two bullet trajectories with exit wound 'N'? The record has no errors. 40. May the advocates read portions of the supplemental police report and preliminary hearing transcript into the record? Portions of this record have been read to the jury and judge. How you use your time is up to you. 41. During the preliminary hearing cross of Monk, the attorney references Monk's interview with investigators on July 25th and asks Monk if he learned James's name by asking his cousin the names of people from the neighborhood (pp ). Monk responds that he did. However, none of this is in the transcript from the July 25th interview. Is this an error? There is no error. You are not missing any testimony or reports. 42. During Monk's second interview with the investigators (p. 36), Monk says that he only learned Joshua's name because it was on the board of photographs at the police station. Exhibit 1 depicts this board, but the photographs have no names attached to them. Is Exhibit 1 an accurate representation of what Monk saw at the police station on the night of the murder? 6

7 Exhibit 1 has been amended and now contains names. 43. On page 29, what are the pictures that the officers are referring to? Are they the same as the ones on the photo board or are they different ones? They are referring to a photo Lineup described by Dr. Chavis (See Stipulation 7). You have not been provided with this Lineup. Not all exhibits referenced during the preliminary hearing have been provided (See Stipulation No. 12). 44. What pictures specifically was shown to monk on the 24 th? And are they provided in the materials? See Question and Answer NO On page 29 line 14, what pictures are they referring to that are numbered? See Question and Answer NO Do the photos Monk was shown on the 25 th correspond with the pictures on the Up the Hill Board even though there are not any numbers on the picture pf the board? Only the photo of James Trundle is the same. The exact photo of James Trundle shown in Exhibit 1 was used in the photographic lineup (which was described by Dr. Chavis but not included in the materials See Stipulations 7 and 12). 47. Is Monk the one referred to in sunshine police report who wrote statement? If it is Monk do we have that statement? And if we do not have that Statement can we argue that we do not have the written statement? There are no statements beyond that provided. No. Assume the statement is consistent with his/her her first taped statement. To avoid confusion or objection, we ve created a new stipulation to this effect (See Stipulation No. 16.) 48. On page 42, is TBE Scalp suppose to be The Scalp? Yes, this and other minor errors have been corrected in the revised materials. 49. Is Necropsy supposed to be the same as an autopsy or does it matter that it is actually a word used for veterinarian autopsies? This is the problem with Google searches. Necropsy is a term used regularly for human autopsies. 50. Who prepared pages 40 and 41? The Medical Examiner. 51. Can we get a typed list of what the hand written notes say on pages 56-58? No. The record is what it is. 7

8 52. Page 68 lines the state says the witness has drawn a red circle around the individual why is there no red circle on exhibit 1? Because the witness is referring to a photo lineup not included in your materials. See Stipulations 7 and On exhibits 4 and 5 can the labeled bullet holes be clarified? They are hard to read. No. Use your best judgment by comparing these exhibits with the diagram provided by Dr. Michaels in the M.E. s report as well as Dr. Michael s testimony. All of it should be consistent (see also: the corrected [omitted] testimony noted in Question and Answer NO. 14). 54. On Pages 76-77, who is David and where is the writing that was supposedly on exhibit 1? Exhibit 1 has been corrected and replaced with names. 55. In the preliminary hearings, why are there what appears to be redactions? Was that a mistake? If so, can we get the original version? No, the NCTAC team eliminated insignificant testimony. No other version will be provided. (But see Stipulation 18; testimony has been added.) 56. What pictures did she show to Monk on the 25 th? Can we get those photos? Ms/Mr. Monk was shown a photographic lineup, typically referenced as a 6- pack. As stated in Stipulations 7 and 12, this exhibit has not been provided. 57. Where is defense exhibit A from page 86? As stated in response to several questions and as set out in Stipulations 7 and 12, not all exhibits from the preliminary hearing have been provided. Defense Exhibit A has not been provided. 58. The exhibits that are unavailable can you argue that they are unavailable? No, you may not make an issue over Exhibits where were not provided. 59. Since some of the experts were Voir Dire during the Preliminary hearing? do we get to re voir dire them? You are free to voir dire the experts. 60. What all did Dr. Lauren Chavis review to come up with her conclusion? See Question and Answer NO How many times has Dr. Lauren Chavis testified? Assume Dr. Chavis has testified hundreds of times as an expert in the field of eyewitness identification. (See Stipulation 17) 62. Can we blow up images from the articles and use them as demonstratives See Rule 22 on page 261 of the materials. 8

9 63. Will the defendant be in the courtroom? If not, can the parties freely refer (constructively) as if the defendant is present? See Question and Answer NO. 26 and Stipulation NO What kind of technology will be available in the courtrooms (for presentation of evidence)? There will be no technology available in the courtrooms. See Question and Answer NO Two spots in the record discuss Mr./Ms. Monk placing the letter "S" on exhibit to (Pg. 69; and Pg ; 17-4). To which reference does the red "S" on Exhibit 2 refer? See Stipulation A couple spots in the record discuss placing circles or writing on Exhibit 1 (Pg 68; and Pg ; 23-13). Should Exhibit One reflect those markings? You have been provided with the clean copy of Exhibit 1. No witness markings appear on it. Ignore the markings as the Exhibit has changed except in the relevant ways described in statements/testimony. 67. Does the "N" at the top of the crime scene aerial photograph (page 10 of exhibits) accurately reflect North at the scene of the shooting? Yes. 68. How is the 80 minute time limit to present the case structured (e.g. the Prosecution's direct examinations and the Prosecution's cross-examinations of the Defense's witnesses or the Prosecution's direct examinations of their witnesses and the Defense's cross-examinations of the Prosecution's witnesses)? You may determine what time you use for each presentation. 69. When testifying, may experts freely refer to materials in the record (e.g. police interview of Monk)? Any witness may testify in accordance with the Federal Rules of Evidence. 70. Should the reference to Monk's police interview on page 190 refer to page "19" and not page "9"? The reference to page 9 should be ignored; the substance of the wtiness statement is what is important. 71. Is Dr. Chavis's report accurate in stating that two of the "foils" shown to Monk were the Defendant's brothers? Yes. Remember, Stipulation 7 provides that the report by Dr. Chavis describes accurately the photo line-up shown to Drew Monk on July 25th. 72. Can experts have notes while testifying (or their report)? Yes. 9

10 73. When referring to parts of the record (e.g. Police interviews of Monk), is it correct to refer to the page provided in the materials as "record page "? As long as you are complying with the Federal Rules of Evidence, you may refer to the record provided by the page number in the materials. 74. Can parties freely refer to the police reports and police interview Monk during direct and cross-examination The Federal Rules of Evidence apply. 75. On page 005, stipulation 4 provides that Exhibit 1-5 were entered into evidence at the preliminary hearing. Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 were marked on at that hearing during the examination of witness Monk. However, in the exhibits provided, Exhibits 2 and 3 maintain the markings that were made, but Exhibit 1 (the photo board) does not (see page 68 lines 25-26, 77 lines 8-12). Was this intentional or an oversight? In other words, when Stipulation 3 on page 005 states that Exhibit 2 reflects the markings made on it by Monk at the preliminary hearing, are we to infer that Exhibit 1 is a clean copy of the same exhibit introduced at the preliminary hearing? And if so, why does Exhibit 3 also retain the marking of the W made on the window made during the preliminary hearing by counsel (page 70 lines 12-17)? Exhibit 1, the Up The Hill PhotoBoard does not show any markings by witness Monk because we have provided you with a clean copy. Exhibits 2 and 3 do contain the markings from the preliminary hearing. 76. According to the preliminary hearing transcript, the district attorney asked Monk to mark with an S on Exhibit 2 the place where s/he saw Lau after he got shot (69 lines 23-26). But on cross-examination, defense counsel also has the witness mark an s where the perpetrator was standing when the first shot was fired (page 82 line 14 page 83 line 4; see also page 84 lines 2-3). There is only one s reflected on Exhibit 2. Are we to assume that it is the same spot? (Defense counsel also has the witness mark with a B the place where the bump between victim and the perpetrator occurred (page 91:4-7), and that is reflected on the exhibit). Is this duplication of s s an oversight? See Stipulation Given that the copy of exhibit 1 provided in the record does not reflect the markings made by Monk, can any clarification be provided as to what Monk refers to when s/he refers to David being to the left of defendant James Trundle? (pager76 line 23 page 77 line 5) If s/he is referring to the left from the perspective of the viewer, the person to the left has his back shown, not his face. If from the perspective of the photograph of Trundle, to his left would be the African American holding the automatic weapon. Exhibit 1 has been amended and replaced. 78. On page 97, during the examination of Lawrence Shapiro, he states: I have been doing independent casework since March of So coming up on nine years. 10

11 (page 97 lines 17-18). That would make the current year 2009 or Is this an oversight? Yes, it should read, I have been doing independency casework since March of Delete So coming up on nine years. 79. Stipulation 7 on page 006 provides "The report by Dr. Chavis accurately describes the photographic line-up shown to Drew Monk on July 25th. The defendant was the only person in the line-up shown to Drew Monk who was in orange clothing, and whose picture bore a different date than the other photographs." Are we to infer that we are free to challenge Chavis' account of the line-up procedure to the extent not specified in this stipulation? No, the stipulation states that Dr. Chavis has accurately described the line-up; you may not invent or add facts in this competition. Do not confuse Exhibit 1 Up the Hill grouping with the photo lineup. This photo lineup is described by Dr. Chavis accurately per stipulation and the lineup has not been included in the materials. Stipulation 7 has been revised. 80. Pat Black's report at page 154 concludes that "the shooting happened in a general east to west direction." Are we to conclude that "east" in Exhibits 2 and 3 is to the right (as you are facing the exhibit), and "west" is to the left? As noted in response to Question and Answer NO. 13, east is to the right and west is to the left (facing the exhibit). There is a compass in the upper right hand corner of Exhibit Dr. Lauren Chavis says the crime occurred at 140 Blythedale on page 190. Is this a mistake or an intentional contradiction? This is our error, not an error by Dr. Chavis. The address should be 140 Main Ave. 82. Dr. Corey Michaels has 16 bullet wounds but says there were 9 shots and only one bullet stayed in the body. This math doesn t work? Is this a mistake? There are no errors in the record. The record is what it is. (Note however that corrections have been made to the M.E. report [having nothing to do with this particular question] and one other correction as noted in response to Question and Answer NO. 14.) 83. Pat Black Resume doesn t mention private practice is that intentional or a mistake. Assume the record is accurate. 84. Does the court already recognize Corey Michaels as an expert? Corey Michaels has been recognized as an expert in the past; there is no stipulation that Dr. Michaels is an expert in the trial court. The teams can stipulate to the expertise or lay the foundation at trial. 11

12 85. On Chavis CV, the article are individuals familiarity judgments diagnostic of prior contact, chavis is listed as a main author but on the article provided he is not. Is this a mistake or intentional? Assume Dr. Chavis is the co-author of the article listed; this was an oversight. 86. On page 154 Pat Black says the direction was east to west while all other evidence says west to east. Is this intentional? There are no errors in the materials. Pat Black will testify in accordance with the anticipated testimony. 87. Does stipulation 6 apply to Monks previous testimony? Stipulation 6 is not ambiguous; only Lawrence Shapiro's testimony has been admitted and read to the judge and jury. 88. Dr. Chavis says he is a professor but does not say how long he has been one. How long can we infer he has been a professor? Use reasonable inferences from the CV provided. 89. Exhibit 6 on the exhibit page is not the same as exhibit 6 in Shapiro s testimony. Are all of our exhibits the pre lim exhibits mentioned in the stipulation? Or are Shapiro s exhibits the pre lim exhibits? Please review the stipulations. Not all exhibits identified/admitted at the preliminary hearing are a part of the materials. 90. Jury Instruction 3:00 seems cut off it lists 1 with a semicolon then it ends and moves on to instruction 4:00. The instructions have been corrected. 91. Is it mandatory for the prosecution to pursue the additional allegation in jury instruction 3:00? The Defendant is charged with murder and a gun enhancement. 92. Is bullet 6B recovered from the ground or from the body? This is not an appropriate question for the committee to answer entry points into the body but only 6 casings checked - where are the other 3? This is not an appropriate question for the committee to answer. 94. Is Drew Monk 24 or 26? Drew Monk is Michael's CV (pg 150) said he did his fellowship at University Sunshine but his direct says he did at at UC San Diego (122) - just a typo? Page 150 has been replaced. 12

13 96. Does the photo (Exhibit 6) originate on 140 main street or from inside a building across the street from 140 main street. This photograph was taken from inside Drew Monk s bedroom from the window through which Monk made all observations on the night of the incident. The view is therefore the same view Monk would have had except it would have been nighttime. (See Stipulation NO. 3.) 97. Which materials has Dr. Chavis reviewed? The problem states Dr. Chavis has reviewed the materials related to the eyewitness testimony. (pg. 190) Which materials are included in that? See response to Question NO The problem mentions in the Preliminary Hearing that the Photo Board is marked (numbered and circled) by Drew Monk. The Photo Board is not marked accordingly in our packet. Should it be marked? No, as noted in response to similar questions, you have been provided with a clean copy of Exhibit No. 1. (Note: Exhibit 1 has been replaced.) 99. On page 6, the problem states that the testimony from Shapiro in the preliminary hearing is deemed admitted. How shall we treat that testimony? Should it be treated as any other type of admitted evidence? No further response will be given Is the competition in real time or future time? The dates contained in the police reports and/or other parts of the record are accurate Can you clarify how the teams work? Yes, if your team has four members named A, B, C and D, A and B would be state lawyers with C and D as their witnesses, and C and D would then be defense lawyers with A and B as their witnesses Is Dr. Chavis board certified? The materials speak for themselves What materials did Dr. Black review? See Question and Answer to NO Can the experts testify that they applied reasonable means and methods in performing their work in this case? This is not a question for the committee to answer Has the court already overruled any Daubert objections/motions so that the experts can testify? Teams should assume there are no Daubert issues in this case. 13

14 106. Can the experts testify that they hold their opinions to a reasonable degree of certainly based on their area of expertise? This is not a question for the committee to answer Have the experts read the articles that were attached in their respective fields for example did the pathologist read the articles on pathology, etc? See Question and Answer to NO Which officer wrote the police report? This is not a question for the committee to answer Is CACJ willing to add defense oriented instructions? Such as an instruction on identification? An instruction on eyewitness testimony is included in the materials How should we handle the Defendant not being at counsel table? Should we state for the record that the Defendant is constructively at counsel table, waived his appearance, etc? See Stipulation NO Can you please list the documents that each expert relied on? See Question and Answer NO Can you please list the documents that each expert has reviewed? See Question and Answer NO The eyewitness first says s/he s 24 in the first interview with the police, but at the preliminary hearing the eyewitness says s/he s 26. Which is it? The witness is 26. This is our error Rule 22 on pg. 261 explains that [t]eams may diagram or make charts in open court to highlight an aspect of the case. Can teams bring the outlines of the charts (chart lines) without any text or data and subsequently fill the charts with information in open court? See Question and Answer NO. 20 and Rule 22. Everything must be created in the courtroom once the round begins On page 057 of the record, the top right head (the one that is depicting the left side of the victim s head) appears to have two circled Ns. One appears at the neck, and one appears just above the lip. Is this correct? There is nothing missing or incorrect Both entrance wounds K and C purport to have exit wound N. Is that correct? There is nothing missing or incorrect. 14

15 117. Two penetrating wounds are listed in the report on page 43, but only one is described in the actual report. (F). Is this correct? There is nothing missing or incorrect. The M.E.'s report contained some minor errors (letters rather than fractions appeared in some instances and these have been corrected.) Otherwise, the record is the record On page and 084 of the record, the record indicates that the S on Exhibit 2 is where the shooter was standing when the first shot was fired. However, on page 069 of the record, it indicates that S is where Lau was after he was shot. Does S represent both facts or is this an error? See Stipulation Does the number of casings found at the scene match the amount of yellow evidence hats depicted in the exhibits? (10 yellow evidence flags = 10 casings?). See Question and Answer NO Was Drew given an opportunity prior to trial to review his prior testimony at the preliminary hearing? This is not a question for the committee to answer Was Drew given an opportunity, prior to trial, to review his statements given at the police interview via the transcripts? This is not a question for the committee to answer Are the experts familiar with the provided learned treatises in their respective fields? See Question and Answer NO Do the provided learned treatises represent best practices/industry standards? This is not a question for the committee to answer May we film the trials so long as the other team agrees to be filmed? Only if you obtain consent from the opposing team and the judges prior to commencement of the round. There will be no technical assistance, outlets, etc To our knowledge the court rooms have projectors (commonly referred to as Elmos). May we use these non-digital devices to enlarge exhibits and documents? No The photo where the deceased s face is blacked out should we assume that the Medical Examiner did the blacking out? Who blacked the face out? This question is inconsequential to the problem. No relevance should be attached to the blacking out of the decedent's face Where did Exhibit 6B, referred to in the Preliminary Hearing Transcript as a copper-jacketed, damaged bullet, come from? Did this come from the body via the 15

16 Medical Examiner? (If so, what is the corresponding projectile #?) Or did it come from the police via the crime scene? This question is not a question for the committee to answer. Since the exhibit is not provided, you may not invent facts about this exhibit Where did Exhibit 6A come from? Is it the object found in the car referred to in the Supplemental Police Report? No, a live round was found at the scene along with spent cartridges. With respect to the object found in the car, please review Stipulation NO 9. The live round found in the defendant's vehicle has not been admitted into evidence, but the information contained in the report has been admitted. Do not make any objections regarding this stipulation. 129.Is the Defense ballistics expert able to provide opinions at trial outside of the 2 page anticipated testimony report that is on page ? This is not a question for the committee to answer. You may not invent facts, but experts may be questioned about materials/articles upon which the opinion is based Will teams be forbidden from moving to exclude the eyewitness identification (photo lineup ID) during MILs? No, you re not forbidden; this is a decision to be made by each team May we assume that expert witnesses have reviewed the testimony and reports of other experts? See Question and Answer NO May teams have someone sitting at counsel table playing the defendant? See Question and Answer NO The article Pezdek article included in the materials appears also to be cited by Chavis in his CV as his own -- same title, same co-author, same publication -- but Pezdek's name, not Chavis, appears on the article we received. Did Chavis coauthor the article we received? Yes. 16