2

23RD ANNUAL CLEVELAND MOCK

TRIAL COMPETITION May 17, 2019

The City of Erieland vs. Shawn Evans: case materials created by LaVora Gayle Gadison, Cleveland Metropolitan School District Curriculum and Instruction Manager -- Social Studies; Dairian Heard, Cleveland-Marshall College of Law; Duane Olderman, Cleveland Metropolitan School District Curriculum (retired); and Jessica Paine, Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association.

Important dates:

Friday, April 26: Team entry forms due (see p. 51)

Friday, May 3: Writing Competition essays due (see p. 53)

Friday, May 17: Competition Day at the Justice Center (1200 Ontario, Downtown Cleveland)

3

Table of Contents

Case Summary 4 Time Capsule 4 Witness Statements For the Prosecution: Statement of Chris Reyes 7 Statement of Corey Rogers 8 Statement of Amari Washington 10 For the Defense: Statement of Shawn Evans 12 Statement of Jesse Donaldson 14 Statement of Dr. Jordan Mitchell 15 Exhibits 17 The Law 22 Enhance Your Case 26 Writing Prompts 26 Competition Instructions 29 Sample Scoresheet 34 Simplified Rules of Evidence and Procedure 35 Examples of Common Objections and Trial Procedure 42 Courtroom Pointers 48 Mock Trial Team Entry Form 51 Writing Competition 53

4

CASE SUMMARY Witnesses for Prosecution

Chris Reyes (Police Officer)

Corey Rogers (FBI Agent)

Amari Washington (Righteous Ones Member) Witnesses for Defense

Shawn Evans (Defendant)

Jesse Donaldson (Righteous Ones Member)

Jordan Mitchell (Medical Examiner) During the evening of July 23, 2018, a gun battle broke out between the nationalist group the Righteous Ones and the local police in the Riverdale neighborhood of Erieland. The Righteous Ones was a group of young people who often gathered at the home of the de facto leader, Shawn Evans. The police and FBI kept this group under surveillance because the group was armed and members openly expressed their distrust and hatred of the police. Shawn Evans was known to be an Iraq war veteran who used their expertise to train Righteous Ones members in the use of weaponry. The Righteous Ones resented the prevalent police presence in the Riverdale Community and called it harassment. They continued to purchase weapons and train for the police attack that they believed would come. Law enforcement officials considered this group to be extremely dangerous and believed that its members were training to launch an attack on them. So, they responded by deploying marked and unmarked police cars to watch the movement of the Righteous Ones members. Each side warily watched the movement of the other waiting for someone to make the first move. This distrust finally erupted in a gun battle between the police and the Righteous Ones on July 23, 2018. Tow truck operator Gordon Lew and Righteous Ones member Alia Chadwick were killed, and Officer Chris Reyes was wounded. Law officials believed that Shawn Evans was responsible for this violence and so charged and indicted them for the murders of the victims of the shootout. Evans was also charged with responsibility for the wounding of Officer Reyes. NOTE: The 2019 Mock Trial Case was inspired by the Glenville Shootout of 1968. The authors hope that students will research, analyze, and review unresolved questions about this moment in history that profoundly impacted not only the Glenville community, but all of the City of Cleveland. Much information is available online and in books such as Shoot-Out in Cleveland, Black Militants and the Police by Louis Masotti, which provided a wealth of information for this project, and Ballots and Bullets: Black Power Politics and Urban Guerrilla Warfare in 1968 Cleveland by James Robenalt.

TIME CAPSULE The city of Cleveland began as a small inland port settled by New Englanders, German merchants, and Irish workers. Following the Civil War, Cleveland became home to thousands of immigrants from eastern and southern Europe. Even though they were met with prejudice and discrimination, they gradually gained economic and political power. Following World War II, thousands of black Americans migrated to Cleveland from the South (known as “The Great

5

Migration”). Many came from Alabama – so many that Cleveland was called “Alabama North.” Despite the growing size of the black population, many community members felt they remained powerless as an “excluded minority.” In the early 1960s, black and white residents organized to address the problems of Cleveland’s black community. By 1963, there were some 50 separate civil rights groups. Organizations like the NAACP were considered to be moderate, while the Black Muslims were seen as more militant. In 1963, the NAACP succeeded in uniting the various groups into a coalition called the United Freedom Movement (UFM). The UFM first focused its efforts on ending segregation in Cleveland’s public schools. Oftentimes, its efforts were met with violence. By 1965, the calls for “black power” had gained in popularity in Cleveland’s black community. Many young people turned to militant organizations as they witnessed instances of racial disturbances across the United States on their televisions sets. Instances of black v. white gang fights increased in the Superior-Sowinski area and tensions increased between the black community and the predominantly white police force. In 1966, these tensions erupted into the Hough riots. More than 2,200 National Guardsmen were called in to patrol the streets. In spite of their presence, the violence lasted for one week and the damage to property was extensive. There were four deaths and countless injuries. By 1967, there were national predictions of more violent uprisings in Cleveland, but they did not come to pass. Instead Clevelanders elected Carl Stokes, the first African-American mayor of a major U.S. city. Many Clevelanders supported his new program (Cleveland Now) to finance programs ranging from youth employment to rehabilitation of housing to downtown economic development. Although Stokes’ tenure as mayor was wracked with difficulties, he seemed to be working through them. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated on April 4, 1968. While other American cities erupted into violence, Mayor Stokes, along with moderate and militant leaders, walked the streets and urged Cleveland’s black residents to keep the peace. The residents listened and Cleveland was spared the violence. On June 10, 1968, President Lyndon B. Johnson issued Executive Order #11412 to establish a national commission to investigate the causes and prevention of violence and make recommendations. The Commission was charged with investigating:

The causes and prevention of lawless acts of violence in our society, including assassination, murder and assault; and

The causes and prevention of disrespect for law and order, of disrespect for public officials, and of violent disruptions of public order by individuals and groups.

According to the President’s Order, the Commission was “authorized to request from any executive department or agency any information and assistance deemed necessary to carry out its functions under this Order. Each department or agency is directed, to the extent permitted by law and within the limits of available funds, to furnish information and assistance to the Commission.” Consequently, a surveillance unit was established in Cleveland with Sargent John Ungvary as its leader. He stated his belief that “What we need is a law that would let us charge them all (black nationalists) as conspirators....” The surveillance unit worked with the FBI to surveille the activists/nationalists of the Hough and Glenville communities. The Nation of Islam, the Afro Set, and the New Libya Army, headed by Fred Ahmed Evans, were militant organizations that were constantly watched by the police and FBI. The relationship between the police and the black residents of Cleveland continued to deteriorate in spite of Mayor Stokes’ efforts. Black

6

nationalists complained about police harassment and knew they were under surveillance. Conditions in Cleveland were ripe for an explosion. That explosion came when a fire fight broke out between the police and the New Libyans in the Glenville Community on the evening of July 23, 1968. Three police officers and four civilians were killed during the Glenville Shootout, which set off several days of rioting and looting. No one knew who fired the first shot. However, on March 6, 1969, Fred Ahmed Evans, leader of the New Libyan Army, along with six others, was charged with and convicted of seven counts of first degree murder, as well as criminal conspiracy. Judge George J. McMonagle sentenced him to die in the electric chair on September 22, 1969. Evans was spared the electric chair, but remained behind bars until he died of cancer some years later at age 46. Even though 50 years have passed since the Glenville Shootout and subsequent trial of Fred Ahmed Evans, the scars of this violence are still visible in this once vibrant community.

7

WITNESS STATEMENTS

FOR THE PROSECUTION Statement of Officer Chris Reyes I am a police officer for the City of Erieland and have been on the force for 21 years. Now I am assigned to traffic duty on the East Side. My dad was a cop before me, and my mom was a prosecutor. You could say that law enforcement runs in my blood. I grew up in Erieland – born on the west side but moved to the suburbs when I was twelve after the incident with my brother. My brother Jules is six years older than I am – he was technically an adult when it all went down but I felt then and feel now he was just a kid. He didn’t deserve to be shot just for going along with a bunch of his friends, for being a rowdy kid, but I guess life isn’t always fair. After we moved is when I really started my interest in guns and learning how to handle them properly. I’m a card-carrying member of the local chapter of the National Rifle Association. I’ve had guns in the house my whole life – from my dad’s official weapon to the hunting rifles he kept at home. Always under lock and key, mind you – he was militant about safety and made sure we kids knew that going near his guns would earn us a whupping, outside of when he’d take us to practice at shooting ranges and, when we were old enough, hunting with his guidance and supervision. I keep two handguns at home (a Glock G19 and Ruger LCP), plus my Smith & Wesson M&P15 rifle and Winchester SXP shotgun for hunting. So I would say that anytime I say a gun is a rifle, or a semi-automatic, or a revolver, you can trust what I’m saying. July 23, 2018, I remember, started off as a slow day. I called headquarters shortly after noon for a possible assignment. The traffic coordinator assigned me to check an abandoned auto by residences in the Riverdale area. The car was a 2015 Cadillac, parked on along Chestnut Ave. on the north side of the street. The left front tire was flat and the license plates were missing. I placed a parking ticket on the car and called for a tow truck to take it to the police impound lot. I expected that the car would be towed sooner than later, but the towers were swamped with previous calls. In the meantime, I made my rounds, stopped by the Lakefront Tavern for some dinner, and then swung back around to check on the abandoned vehicle. And no, of course I wasn’t drunk, as I have been accused by some of those involved in the shootout. I’ll admit I had a single beer with dinner off the clock before heading back out on duty. That’s not entirely kosher, but it’s also not exactly frowned on – this is a tough job. But if I can’t handle one beer in an hour with dinner, it’s time for me to hang up my badge. The tow truck finally arrived at dusk. Even though the driver was in uniform, he was a civilian employee and carried no weapons. I watched the tow truck backed up to the Cadillac and I watched the driver get out of the truck. All of a sudden, shots were fired from the direction of the houses and one of the operators went down, a man I later learned was named Gordon Lew, who died from his wounds at the hospital. The next thing I knew, I was shot in the back. I was still able to turn around slowly and saw someone with a rifle firing from the side of a house at the corner of Lakefront and Chestnut. Another shot struck the tow truck and I saw another sniper firing from the bushes across the street from the truck, down the road just one or two houses west of the truck. I was able to radio for help and the shooting stopped. I needed to get out of the line of fire. So, I used this time to walk and drag myself away from the tow truck and Cadillac. I fired back with my handgun in the direction of where the shots were coming from to give me cover to get away, which was all I could do since I was mostly unable to return fire with just my handgun. (My

8

shotgun was in my patrol car: per regulations, our department issued shotguns are left in our patrol cars when not in use.) In my pain and shock, I must have dropped my handgun. It was never found – I’m assuming someone picked it up on the scene in the middle of all the chaos. I never saw the Righteous Ones member Alia Chadwick get shot. As I walked very slowly down the block trying to get out of the line of fire, someone with a rifle approached me and asked if I was one of the SOBs stealing cars. I said I was a police officer. The person took aim and fired at me but missed. I flagged down a squad car and was rescued. I was taken to Erieland Hospital for treatment. I later learned that the person who aimed and fired at me was Shawn Evans. I’m telling you, in all my years as a police officer, that night was one of the worst. Being on traffic duty, you see some action but not as much, and I definitely wasn’t expecting to be shot doing a routine auto check and tow. I was shot in the back, too, just like Jules was. Jules was hanging out with some of his friends that night and they stopped to get some gas on their way out. The kids Jules was with, some of them were ok but one I will always remember – Carl. He had an attitude like he just didn’t care what happened, so long as he could watch the world burn. He blamed everything on everyone else – where he lived, what his parents made, that he dropped out of school in 11th grade – whatever it was, it was someone else’s fault. Carl was the one who mouthed off to the other driver at the gas station, while Jules was inside getting some chips and pop. The other guy said Carl and their friends were playing their music too loud, that hip hop didn’t even count as music. So Carl got up in his face, and it escalated, when he could have just been the bigger person and walked away. They were shouting and posturing when Jules walked up to the car, and the other guy must have been spooked, thinking Jules was sneaking up on him, so he pulled a gun from his waistband and shot. Jules wasn’t a threat, wasn’t even facing him. He didn’t even know what was going on, and he ended up shot. I was luckier than Jules – he ended up six feet under, and I’m here walking around because the bullet missed the most important parts inside me. Shawn and these Righteous Ones remind me of Carl and some of his friends. Always talking about improving their community and blaming others, but never making any real moves to make anything better. I definitely don’t agree with everything they did, but at least the Black Panthers fed breakfast to kids in their neighborhoods and opened up free medical clinics. These new groups, what are they doing besides talk? Besides inciting violence? Nothing. We’ve got to shut this down. All this mistrust of police is entirely misguided – we’re just out here doing our jobs, trying to stay safe, trying to keep peace in the community. They’re stirring up violence and getting themselves and innocent bystanders killed. I believe that Shawn Evans shot those people and me, and even if they didn’t pull the trigger themselves, they were entirely complicit in all the violence that evening. Statement of Corey Rogers, FBI Agent I work in the Erieland office of the Counter Intelligence Division of the FBI. My division targets nationalist and other hate groups. My job is to cooperate with the local police department to prevent the nationalists from engaging in or causing disturbances riots or revolution in Erieland or its suburbs. Since we do not have any primary investigative jurisdiction, in so far as violations of federal laws my assignments is to support the local police by gathering and sharing information about the group in question. I earned dual bachelor’s degrees in intelligence studies and national security from Point Park University in Pittsburgh. After graduation I was hired at the Chicago Division of the Drug

9

Enforcement Agency in their Intelligence Unit for three years, which is responsible for the collection, analysis, and dissemination of drug-related intelligence. I have been in this line of work for 18 years, starting out after my time with the DEA tracking the hate group American Guard in Chicago, then transferring in 2008 to tracking the Nation of Islam in Kentucky. I have been providing intelligence on nationalist and hate groups in Erieland, Ohio, since 2011. In my time here, we have established that several groups exist in Erieland: the Righteous Ones is one of them. As an FBI agent, I am committed to upholding the Bureau’s values and ideals: protecting the nation’s economy and infrastructure while upholding democracy. As an intelligence-driven and threat-focused federal organization, the FBI’s goal is to defend the U.S. and its citizens by upholding and enforcing criminal laws, assisting and serving alongside organizations, agencies, and partners, and protecting our great country from intelligence threats, both home-grown and foreign. The Righteous Ones is an undisciplined, loosely-organized band of young people between the ages of 16 to 30 years old – the leader, Shawn Evans, is slightly older at 34. They openly refer to themselves as nationalists and soldiers and have openly purchased weapons and ammunition. The Righteous Ones really don’t have strong beliefs, formal meetings, or a planned program. They mostly congregate at 21321 Chestnut Ave. where they drink, smoke marijuana, play cards, and express their hatred for the police. Most of them have been engaged in criminal activity, such as drug dealing, petty theft, and lower-level felonies such as grand theft of a motor vehicle or breaking and entering. In my intelligence-gathering capacity, I personally witnessed known members of the Righteous Ones purchase eight assault rifles, three AR15 pistols, and an unconfirmed number of handguns on June 21, 2018 in a shop on Plato Ave. in Riverdale. On the evening of July 14, 2018, I also personally witnessed two cars with out-of-state license plates delivering large crates to Evans’s house, and Evans and two of their top henchmen were seen helping to bring the crates from the cars into the house. Although neither the FBI nor the local police have been able to confirm the contents of those crates, the plates do belong to two individuals with known ties to arms-dealing organizations in Pennsylvania. The police never got enough evidence to support a warrant to search Evans’s home before the shootout, however. And in the aftermath of the shootout, someone set fire to the house – nothing conclusive was left in the ashes. By the way, the idea that any of the police officers on scene were “drunk” or in any way incapacitated at the time is absolutely ludicrous. I have worked with all of these officers, including Officer Reyes, for years. I have known the officers of the Erieland Police Department to be upstanding men and women who are dedicated to their job protecting the citizens of Riverdale. The idea that anyone on the force would be drunk on the job would be laughable if it weren’t such an insult to them and to the badge. In my estimation and that of my agency, the Righteous Ones members are undisciplined, without moral principles and completely lacking in respect for law and order. They spend a lot of time caring for their weapons and talking about killing the police. They also don’t engage in strict group loyalty, as they don’t have a problem informing on each other. In fact, several Righteous Ones are informants for our office. I spoke to leader Shawn Evans on several occasions, and have heard Evans describe their brand of nationalism as “revolution by force.” One time Evans was especially talkative and told me they predicted “blood in the streets of Erieland” and a war by the people on the “beast.” Evans reminded me that they’re a soldier who would defend themselves and those they love against police violence, meeting force with force if necessary.

10

Evans and the Righteous Ones “soldiers” were always ready. Evans told me they hoped the police would think twice before coming for them. Because of the Righteous Ones’ irrational hatred of law enforcement officers, they have the potential to cause a disturbance at any moment. I have no problem asserting, based on my years of surveillance and intelligence-gathering about the group and Evans in particular, that this was a planned and pre-meditated violent insurrection, and that Evans should be found liable for murder and conspiracy. Statement of Amari Washington I am an 18-year-old student at Riverdale High School. To be honest, I don’t particularly like school but I am an average student, I keep a 2.5 GPA. I am not into school activities or sports because they aren’t important, they’re just meaningless noise, busywork until they can get rid of us from school and let us out into the world. I want to engage in activities that will be more relevant to my community, to lift us up. As a result, I joined the Righteous Ones two years ago. We are all about rising as a community through works of social justice. A lot of what they said made sense to me – I could see with my own eyes that the police were keeping watch on us, and I have a lot of family members and friends who say they feel threatened by the police every day. I’ve been stopped and frisked myself, plenty of times. I don’t know anyone my age who hasn’t, even when I’m just minding my own business walking down the sidewalk. Being with the Righteous Ones felt good, like they get it and understand what it’s like to be me, living here in Riverdale. Through my membership in this group, I had the opportunity to meet the leader, Shawn Evans. At first, I was impressed by their vision for the community. But I never really liked Shawn’s militancy against the police. I am for change but not if it involves fighting the police. I believe in peaceful movements of resistance and good works, not violence. I remember one time Shawn said to me “I don’t call it violence when it’s in self-defense. I call it intelligence.” I thought about that a lot, and later found out that it’s a quote from Malcolm X. The full quote is “We will be nonviolent with those who are nonviolent with us. But if a four-legged dog attacks me for demanding rights that I’m deserved because I’m a human being, I’m going to shoot that dog. And then I’m going to shoot the dog’s owner who allowed it to attack me. I don’t call it violence when it’s in self-defense. I call it intelligence.” Shawn definitely held to the belief that violence should be met with violence. When I was at Shawn’s house on Chestnut Ave. a couple of weeks before the shootout, I saw these big crates piled in the basement, but I never knew what was in them. I know that Shawn had a handgun and a couple of long, bigger guns, but I don’t know enough about guns to tell you what they are. Shawn bought and carried them legally, as far as I know. Most of the other Righteous Ones had guns of some kind or another. On the morning of July 23, 2018, Shawn sent out word to gather at their house, and about 40 of us answered the call. Shawn told us we had to prepare for a “shootout with the police,” that the cops were out to get them and they wouldn’t take it anymore. Shawn parted the curtains and pointed at a couple of cars out there, saying they were unmarked police cars and that the cops were always watching, threatening. So, Shawn has us all begin practicing loading and unloading our guns. Shawn started by laying two of their own guns out on the table, with a knife and some bullets, then had us practice on those before handing us our own weapons. I took a quick picture of Shawn’s guns with my

11

phone, I think I just thought the arrangement of them with the bullets and flashlight looked gangster. I didn’t take the pic specifically because I thought it would be evidence of a crime, but …it wasn’t a zero percent chance in my mind, if you know what I mean. Shawn gave me a handgun from the stash, I have no idea what kind. Shawn also showed us what to do if our weapons jammed. Shawn said that we were going to start the revolution and that we needed to know how to handle our weapons and ourselves. Shawn said it was important to stay cool when the police returned fire, reminded us that we were soldiers fighting for a just cause. So, me and my fellow Righteous Ones spent the morning practicing. It was my first time holding a gun, and it didn’t feel right to me. I was scared. We didn’t do much for the rest of the day, just sitting around watching TV and playing cards, but later that night about 8 p.m. Shawn left the house with a few of the brothers and sisters. I don’t know if they were armed, I just saw them as they were leaving. I do know that I heard Shawn and some others talking in the other room, not loud but urgently, about someone who had pulled up in a truck, dressed in a uniform. I think I heard one of them say something about it being more police. No more than 15 minutes later, I heard the first pops of gunfire. They sounded close, like right outside the house. I hit the floor. I heard more shouts and shots, but it was so confusing, I couldn’t tell who was shooting or who was shouting. I have no idea exactly how many shots were fired, it seemed like dozens of them before it stopped. I managed to crawl to the backdoor, then I admit it, I just took off. There were other Righteous Ones running too, some towards the front door where the shooting was, some out the back with me. We were scared. It was total chaos. I didn’t stop running until I got home. I didn’t tell anybody what happened right away – I didn’t know if the police had started a war and would come get me, or the Righteous Ones had and they would come after me for running. When I heard what happened, it was rumors and unsubstantiated facts. I heard later that my fellow Righteous Ones member Alia Chadwick was killed, along with a tow truck driver, and Officer Reyes was wounded. I heard that someone set fire to the house and it burned to the ground. I was too scared to come forward right away, although I wish I had. When the police came to talk to me about those other arson accusations in September, I told them everything about that night in July. There’s no relation between the two nights, of course, but I kept hearing the shots in my head and having bad dreams. I figured coming clean and helping put the killers in jail would help me get closure and move on. I know my past might seem a little shady because I was charged with arson and first-degree murder for the death by fire of a 68-year-old man in September, a couple of months after the shootout. The police said I set fire to a church, a fish market, and an abandoned building, based on the word of one guy from my school, who I think is probably the one who did it himself. Even though I was charged, there was not enough evidence to indict me on any of these charges. Listen, I still don’t understand how the police could bring these fake charges against me. If you spent five minutes asking around about me, you’d hear that I don’t like violence, it goes against my nature. I’m not a pure angel, I mean, I admit that I might smoke a blunt every now and then or pour myself a free Slushie from the corner store when no one’s looking. But I would never deliberately set fire to a church and kill one of my elders. I’m mad at the police for making me look bad and putting me and my family through these false accusations, but not angry enough to declare war with them. I hope that my testimony against Shawn will show that I am not a murderer, and that I really do believe that peaceful resistance is the answer. I did not kill that old man and I did not intend to declare war on the police. Testifying here against Shawn, it’s got to put me in a good light, right? It shows that I’m a good citizen working for the betterment of my

12

community. I’m putting my neck out to help put an actual murderer in jail, not fake like these charges against me. The thing is, even if Shawn didn’t pull the trigger on the gun that killed those people themselves, they all but held the hand of whoever did. Shawn was the one who gave us all weapons and trained us in using them, had weapons of their own, and encouraged us to respond to any act of aggression with violence. Shawn was our leader – if anything was going down, I would put good money on the fact that Shawn started it.

FOR THE DEFENSE Shawn Evans, Defendant My name is Shawn Evans. I am an Iraq War veteran and the de facto leader of the Righteous Ones. When I was a teen, I knew that school was not the path for me and so I volunteered for the Army to protect my country. While in Iraq, I was a sharpshooter who was often the point person during reconnaissance missions. When I think about It, I learned a lot while in the Army. I learned all about weapons, surveillance, survival, and how to defend myself against attack. I also learned that the authorities do not have your best interests at heart. If you want real change, real progress, you have to do it yourself with your community by your side. I returned from Iraq to find that things in my neighborhood were still the same. Unemployment, hopelessness, crime, fear, violence, and distrust of the police were still there. My community was not safe. It was the slow violence of neglect and bigotry, a powder keg of tragedy just waiting to explode. If I could fight in Iraq to defend my country, how could I not do what needed to be done to protect my own community, my home? I found young members in the community with the same concerns and began to meet with them. The youth are the ones with the new ideas, new ways of thinking about the world. We became known as the Righteous Ones. The young brothers and sisters hung out at my house at 21321 Chestnut Ave. where we watched the news, rapped, and talked politics. We agreed that it was our responsibility to protect our community and work for its progress. Members of the Righteous Ones believe that community residents can no longer depend on others to cure our ills. We have to do that ourselves. We have work to do! First, we have to learn our history. Then we have to begin to educate our people. I have a bookstore in Riverdale that I started to help us learn about our history and culture, where we also sell African imports, some groceries, and some homemade food. It’s been shut down three times for “sanitary violations.” There are no violations, they just don’t want to see someone like me succeed and help educate my people. We have to start our own businesses to keep our money in our community. More importantly we have to be prepared to defend ourselves at all times. I guess you might call us Nationalists because we believe in the economic and political empowerment of our community. Me and several of the brothers began to wear dreads and dress in the clothes of the motherland. Most of us took new names. I became Shawn Ali. The police called us militants and kept us under surveillance. We knew we were being watched but met anyway. The police followed us everywhere. We felt threatened by the constant presence of marked and unmarked cars in our community. We

13

believed that it was just a matter of time before the police would attack us. Everything we did was 100% legal, but they would not just let us be. So, me and my people purchased weapons to defend ourselves against the attack that we knew was coming. I own two rifles and a handgun, all of which I have legal permits for. Let me be clear, we never planned to attack the police because that would have meant war. I have seen war and its horrors. I have seen entire communities destroyed in Iraq. I didn’t want to see that happen in my neighborhood. The Righteous Ones worked to improve our hood, not destroy it! So, it all boiled down to this. The police didn’t trust us and we didn’t trust the police. We became more and more uncomfortable with the police surveillance of my house and talked about how we might have to defend ourselves if the police decided to attack us. On the morning of July 23, I met with community leaders outside my house on Chestnut. I voiced my concerns about the police surveillance and was assured that they would work to call off the police. That didn’t happen. One unmarked car became two and two became six. The police were everywhere and they were using binoculars to watch my house. I was a sitting duck if the police decided to open fire. And let’s not forget, it’s not like in every incident when the police open fire on someone like me, there was something causing it. All it takes is one officer to say they felt “threatened.” I had my friends and compatriots, the Righteous Ones, with me most of that day in my house. We were with each other for support and protection. By evening I was feeling stir-crazy, so I decided to leave my place and hang out at the Lakefront Tavern on the corner of my street (Chestnut and Lakefront). I grabbed my rifle and headed for the tavern. Before I left, I did point out to some of my friends that the cars were still there, and I thought I could see some officers who had just arrived in a truck. I was wary, but decided to continue on rather than be caught inside the house if the worst happened. A few of the Righteous Ones had left before me, and a few more, including Alia Chadwick, said they would be joining me soon. While walking, I heard some shots coming from the east end of the street. I saw a police officer on the ground who opened up fire, and next thing I knew, Alia fell to the ground near me dead. So, the soldier came out in me and I prepared to defend myself from attack. I looked for cover, ran into a yard, and began trading shots with the police officer who was behind a parked car. But I couldn’t get a clean shot, I wasn’t coming anywhere close. Then my weapon jammed. I hid in the bushes and tried to fix my weapon, but couldn’t. I needed to see what was happening at the corner, so I ran into my friend’s house at 1384 Lakefront and went straight to the attic. I told her to call the police and tell them I wanted to surrender. The police never came; that’s my story. I don’t know why I have been charged with two counts of first-degree murder. I never shot anyone. I fired my weapon only after the police shot at me first. My weapon jammed and I retreated. I never planned to attack the police. The Righteous Ones never planned to attack the police. We purchased weapons legally to defend ourselves from the attack that we knew was coming. Me and my brothers and sisters simply defended ourselves. We did not ambush the police. The police ambushed us.

14

Jesse Donaldson My parents named me Jesse Donaldson, but I became Jesse Osu Bey when I joined the Righteous Ones. I was looking for a group that believes that defending our community is just as important as working to empower its members. The Righteous Ones is that group. So, I joined it. Our leader is Shawn Ali, a 34-year-old Iraq war veteran known to you all as Shawn Evans. I love Shawn because they think and act like a soldier and a leader. Shawn constantly talked about the importance of defending ourselves and our community. Shawn also insisted that we learn our history and work to end the crime and violence and hopelessness that plague our neighborhood. The police were always following us around, just waiting for us to do something wrong. They made us feel like hardcore criminals. They really gave Shawn a hard time. I don’t understand why. Even though Shawn was a soldier, they’re really a peacekeeper. Shawn always walked the streets with community leaders and urged residents to stay peaceful no matter what. So, why were the police always watching them? Was it because they’re a soldier and we looked up to them? Was it because Shawn purchased rifles and ammunition? (By the way, the weapons and ammunition were purchased legally and Shawn had a permit to carry them.) Was it because Shawn always had armed guards in front of their house? Maybe the police had a problem with our keeping them under surveillance. Ironic, no? We watched the police as closely as they watched us because we were afraid that they were just waiting for the right time to ambush us. When we weren’t on surveillance duty, we hung out at Shawn’s place. We played cards, talked about astrology, and discussed ways to make our community a better place. Our girlfriends/boyfriends hung out with us, too. Shawn taught us so much about life. Shawn told us to always be prepared, and spent a lot of time showing us how to use and care for our weapons. I used to fear the police before Shawn, who constantly said, “Be prepared, not scared.” I’m not scared anymore. Shawn has been through so much and come through it with love on the other side. Did you know that Shawn still suffers from headaches and blackouts from injuries sustained in the Army? If Shawn came out of that with a tendency to paranoia, I’d say it’s not surprising, or something to blame them for. Plus, don’t they say you’re not paranoid if they really are out to get you? So, on that morning of July 23rd, a small group of us got together at Shawn’s place. Shawn was in one of their moods, freaking out about unmarked cars, filled with policemen, sitting out front because they had binoculars and were looking through the windows. They could see our every move. I looked outside and saw them too. What were they looking for? Were they just going to sit there all day? Or were they going to open fire on us? Something was off about that police officer, Officer Reyes, too. I saw Reyes when they were ticketing a Caddy down the street around noon. At the time they were unremarkable, I just noticed because we were watching everything closely that day. Later though, when Reyes came back to ticket the car they seemed unsteady on their feet. Look, I’m not the only one who thinks they looked drunk. I heard through the grapevine that Officer Reyes was knocking back beers at the Tavern before everything went down. It was evening, maybe Reyes wanted to start their time off early, I can’t tell you. I’m just saying it looked like they were swaying more than a little bit. Anyway, Shawn called community leaders and others from the Righteous Ones to come join us later in the day. The mood was really tense throughout the day. At about 7:30 that evening, Shawn told me to go stand guard on the corner of Chestnut and Lakefront Ave. Alia Chadwick,

15

a sister from our group, followed us out and Shawn told her to take a post across the street near that abandoned Cadillac, Shawn would be following in a bit after they cleared their head a bit. At dusk a tow truck came and backed up to the Cadillac. The driver got out of the truck and started speaking to the police officer standing in front of the car. I couldn’t hear what they said because someone started firing their weapon. I saw the tow truck driver go down, then more shots. Then I saw Alia running down the street toward Shawn’s place. That was the last time I saw her alive. I didn’t see her get shot, I was busy taking cover. Jordan Mitchell, Medical Examiner I am Dr. Jordan Mitchell, MD, one of the medical examiners for the City of Erieland. I graduated from Buckeye State University with a Bachelor’s Degree of Science, with a pre-med dual major in biology and chemistry. I obtained my medical degree at the same University in 2004, and spent my four-year residency with the Department of Pathology at Johns Skipkins School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland. The Department of Pathology at Johns Skipkins is one of the top centers nationally and worldwide in professional training in all areas of pathology and laboratory science. At Johns Skipkins, residents undergo clinically relevant rotations and training, including weekly didactic sessions in both Anatomic and Clinical Pathology, weekly surgical pathology case conferences, daily and weekly multiheaded microscope and didactic conferences in surgical pathology and other specialty areas, and weekly seminars in clinical pathology. Among many others, I completed rotations in Autopsy, Forensic Pathology, Hematopathology, Medical Microbiology, and Surgical Pathology. Soon after I completed my residency, I was offered a job as a licensed medical examiner for the City of Erieland and moved back to Ohio in 2008. In the years since my residency, I have authored eight articles published in nationally-renowned medical journals, including most relevantly: “Centerfire Frangible Ammunition: Wounding Potential and Other Forensic Concerns” in the American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology; “Biomechanical Evaluation of Torso Gunshot Wounds” in the Journal of Medical Toxicology and Clinical Forensic Medicine; and “Practical Pathology for Gunshot Wounds: Review of the Literature” in Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology. As a medical examiner, I put my education and training in forensic medicine and pathology to good use every day. So, I am often called to crime scenes when warranted, and I have treated countless gunshot wounds as a physician. Sometimes I help in the Trauma Department of Erieland Hospital when things are slow at my office. I was working in Trauma on the evening of July 23, when Officer Reyes, Gordon Lew, and Alia Chadwick were brought in by emergency medical technicians. I examined all three victims and found that they all sustained injuries from gunshots. Officer Reyes was shot in the back, Ms. Chadwick sustained a gunshot wound to her side, and Mr. Lew had two gunshot wounds entering from the front: one on the upper left torso and one in the abdomen. Officer Reyes survived, while Ms. Chadwick and Mr. Lew did not. I treated Officer Reyes and established the preliminary cause of death for Ms. Chadwick and Mr. Lew. Officer Reyes was extremely lucky because their spine and internal organs escaped damage. Although they presently suffer from excruciating pain, their condition is not permanent. With intensive physical therapy, they will eventually walk without pain. Ms. Chadwick and Mr. Lew were not as fortunate. They died as a result of the injuries that they sustained.

16

I can tell you that shotguns fire shells or cartridges that contain metal pellets or shot that scatter when projected. All other projectile weapons, like handguns or rifles, leave more concentrated wounds upon impact. I found traces of buckshot (pellets) in the wounds of Officer Reyes and Mr. Lew. However, the wounds on Ms. Chadwick were more concentrated. So, even though I was unable to determine whether the victims were shot by the same weapon, I can expertly say that both Officer Reyes and Mr. Lew suffered from shotgun wounds. I can say with equal confidence that the wounds suffered by Ms. Chadwick were likely from a handgun or rifle. Injuries like what Officer Reyes suffered, in my experience, are almost always in a state of shock immediately after the injury. They often lose consciousness once they realize the extent of their injury, even if later they don’t recall passing out. Even if they don’t pass out, often the adrenaline and shock will keep them from feeling pain right away as their body tries to deal with the trauma, and that can distort the victim’s processing of physical sensation, including the pain as well as what they see and hear. I’ve even heard of victims suffering hallucinations in the immediate aftermath of being shot. It is possible, and in fact likely in my estimation, that with an injury as severe as that suffered by Officer Reyes, they could easily have confused what they saw or heard.

17

EXHIBITS

18

19

20

21

22

THE LAW Ohio Revised Code 2903.01 [Effective 3/20/2019] Aggravated murder. (A) No person shall purposely, and with prior calculation and design, cause the death of another or the unlawful termination of another's pregnancy. (B) No person shall purposely cause the death of another or the unlawful termination of another's pregnancy while committing or attempting to commit, or while fleeing immediately after committing or attempting to commit, kidnapping, rape, aggravated arson, arson, aggravated robbery, robbery, aggravated burglary, burglary, trespass in a habitation when a person is present or likely to be present, terrorism, or escape. (C) No person shall purposely cause the death of another who is under thirteen years of age at the time of the commission of the offense. (D) No person who is under detention as a result of having been found guilty of or having pleaded guilty to a felony or who breaks that detention shall purposely cause the death of another. (E) No person shall purposely cause the death of a law enforcement officer whom the offender knows or has reasonable cause to know is a law enforcement officer when either of the following applies:

(1) The victim, at the time of the commission of the offense, is engaged in the victim's duties. (2) It is the offender's specific purpose to kill a law enforcement officer.

(F) No person shall purposely cause the death of a first responder or military member whom the offender knows or has reasonable cause to know is a first responder or military member when it is the offender's specific purpose to kill a first responder or military member. (G) Whoever violates this section is guilty of aggravated murder, and shall be punished as provided in section 2929.02 of the Revised Code. 2903.02 Murder. (A) No person shall purposely cause the death of another or the unlawful termination of another's pregnancy. (B) No person shall cause the death of another as a proximate result of the offender's committing or attempting to commit an offense of violence that is a felony of the first or second degree and that is not a violation of section 2903.03 or 2903.04 of the Revised Code. (C) Division (B) of this section does not apply to an offense that becomes a felony of the first or second degree only if the offender previously has been convicted of that offense or another specified offense. (D) Whoever violates this section is guilty of murder …. 2903.03 Voluntary manslaughter. (A) No person, while under the influence of sudden passion or in a sudden fit of rage, either of which is brought on by serious provocation occasioned by the victim that is reasonably sufficient

23

to incite the person into using deadly force, shall knowingly cause the death of another or the unlawful termination of another's pregnancy. (B) No person, with a sexual motivation, shall violate division (A) of this section. (C) Whoever violates this section is guilty of voluntary manslaughter, a felony of the first degree. 2903.04 Involuntary manslaughter. (A) No person shall cause the death of another or the unlawful termination of another's pregnancy as a proximate result of the offender's committing or attempting to commit a felony. (B) No person shall cause the death of another or the unlawful termination of another's pregnancy as a proximate result of the offender's committing or attempting to commit a misdemeanor of any degree, a regulatory offense, or a minor misdemeanor other than a violation of any section contained in Title XLV of the Revised Code that is a minor misdemeanor and other than a violation of an ordinance of a municipal corporation that, regardless of the penalty set by ordinance for the violation, is substantially equivalent to any section contained in Title XLV of the Revised Code that is a minor misdemeanor. (C) Whoever violates this section is guilty of involuntary manslaughter. Violation of division (A) of this section is a felony of the first degree. Violation of division (B) of this section is a felony of the third degree. 2903.041 Reckless homicide. (A) No person shall recklessly cause the death of another or the unlawful termination of another's pregnancy. (B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of reckless homicide, a felony of the third degree. Effective Date: 09-29-1999. 2903.05 Negligent homicide. (A) No person shall negligently cause the death of another or the unlawful termination of another's pregnancy by means of a deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance as defined in section 2923.11 of the Revised Code. (B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of negligent homicide, a misdemeanor of the first degree. 2903.13 Assault. (A) No person shall knowingly cause or attempt to cause physical harm to another or to another's unborn. (B) No person shall recklessly cause serious physical harm to another or to another's unborn. (C) (1) Whoever violates this section is guilty of assault, and the court shall sentence the offender as provided in this division …. Except as otherwise provided in division (C)(4), (5), (6), … of this section, assault is a misdemeanor of the first degree. …

(4) If the offense is committed in any of the following circumstances, assault is a felony of the fifth degree: … (5) If the victim of the offense is a peace officer or an investigator of the bureau of criminal identification and investigation, a firefighter, or a person performing emergency medical service, while in the performance of their official duties, assault is a felony of the fourth degree.

24

(6) If the victim of the offense is a peace officer or an investigator of the bureau of criminal identification and investigation and if the victim suffered serious physical harm as a result of the commission of the offense, assault is a felony of the fourth degree, and the court, pursuant to division (F) of section 2929.13 of the Revised Code, shall impose as a mandatory prison term one of the prison terms prescribed for a felony of the fourth degree that is at least twelve months in duration.

(D) As used in this section:

(1) "Peace officer" has the same meaning as in section 2935.01 of the Revised Code. … (10) "Investigator of the bureau of criminal identification and investigation" has the same meaning as in section 2903.11 of the Revised Code.

2903.11 [Effective 3/22/2019] Felonious assault. (A) No person shall knowingly do either of the following:

(1) Cause serious physical harm to another or to another's unborn; (2) Cause or attempt to cause physical harm to another or to another's unborn by means of a deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance.

(D) (1) (a) Whoever violates this section is guilty of felonious assault. Except as otherwise provided in this division or division (D)(1)(b) of this section, felonious assault is a felony of the second degree. If the victim of a violation of division (A) of this section is a peace officer or an investigator of the bureau of criminal identification and investigation, felonious assault is a felony of the first degree. (E) As used in this section:

(1) "Deadly weapon" and "dangerous ordnance" have the same meanings as in section 2923.11 of the Revised Code. … ["Deadly weapon" means any instrument, device, or thing capable of inflicting death, and designed or specially adapted for use as a weapon, or possessed, carried, or used as a weapon. ORC 2923.11] (3) "Peace officer" has the same meaning as in section 2935.01 of the Revised Code. … ["Peace officer" includes … a sheriff; deputy sheriff; marshal; deputy marshal; member of the organized police department of any municipal corporation …. ORC 2935.01]

(5) "Investigator of the bureau of criminal identification and investigation" means an investigator of the bureau of criminal identification and investigation who is commissioned by the superintendent of the bureau as a special agent for the purpose of assisting law enforcement officers or providing emergency assistance to peace officers pursuant to authority granted under section 109.541 of the Revised Code.

2923.01 Conspiracy. (A) No person, with purpose to commit or to promote or facilitate the commission of aggravated murder, murder, … shall do either of the following:

(1) With another person or persons, plan or aid in planning the commission of any of the specified offenses; (2) Agree with another person or persons that one or more of them will engage in conduct that facilitates the commission of any of the specified offenses.

(B) No person shall be convicted of conspiracy unless a substantial overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy is alleged and proved to have been done by the accused or a person with whom the accused conspired, subsequent to the accused's entrance into the conspiracy. For purposes

25

of this section, an overt act is substantial when it is of a character that manifests a purpose on the part of the actor that the object of the conspiracy should be completed. (C) When the offender knows or has reasonable cause to believe that a person with whom the offender conspires also has conspired or is conspiring with another to commit the same offense, the offender is guilty of conspiring with that other person, even though the other person's identity may be unknown to the offender. (D) It is no defense to a charge under this section that, in retrospect, commission of the offense that was the object of the conspiracy was impossible under the circumstances. (E) A conspiracy terminates when the offense or offenses that are its objects are committed or when it is abandoned by all conspirators. In the absence of abandonment, it is no defense to a charge under this section that no offense that was the object of the conspiracy was committed. (F) A person who conspires to commit more than one offense is guilty of only one conspiracy, when the offenses are the object of the same agreement or continuous conspiratorial relationship. (G) When a person is convicted of committing or attempting to commit a specific offense or of complicity in the commission of or attempt to commit the specific offense, the person shall not be convicted of conspiracy involving the same offense. (H) (1) No person shall be convicted of conspiracy upon the testimony of a person with whom the defendant conspired, unsupported by other evidence. (I) The following are affirmative defenses to a charge of conspiracy:

(1) After conspiring to commit an offense, the actor thwarted the success of the conspiracy under circumstances manifesting a complete and voluntary renunciation of the actor's criminal purpose. (2) After conspiring to commit an offense, the actor abandoned the conspiracy prior to the commission of or attempt to commit any offense that was the object of the conspiracy, either by advising all other conspirators of the actor's abandonment, or by informing any law enforcement authority of the existence of the conspiracy and of the actor's participation in the conspiracy.

(J) Whoever violates this section is guilty of conspiracy, which is one of the following:

(1) A felony of the first degree, when one of the objects of the conspiracy is aggravated murder, murder, or an offense for which the maximum penalty is imprisonment for life; (2) A felony of the next lesser degree than the most serious offense that is the object of the conspiracy, when the most serious offense that is the object of the conspiracy is a felony of the first, second, third, or fourth degree; … (4) A misdemeanor of the first degree, when the most serious offense that is the object of the conspiracy is a felony of the fifth degree.

26

ENHANCE YOUR CASE

Use relevant exhibits to establish certain important facts.

Determine if there are any facts to impeach (discredit) a witness’s testimony.

Determine if there are any facts that can be used to show a witness’s testimony was motivated by bad or impure reason (for example, is Amari Washington testifying against Shawn Evans only to escape their own criminal charges?)

Try to manipulate facts to conform to your theory of the case (for example, is there any cause to believe another Righteous Ones member other than Shawn Evans shot any of the victims?).

Standard of proof: Remember that in a criminal trial, the burden is on the prosecution to prove the defendant’s guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt,” which means the evidence must be so strong that there is no reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime.

WRITING PROMPTS

1. Write a sentencing memorandum for City of Erieland v. Shawn Evans using the assumption that Shawn Evans was convicted of one or more of the charges. Support your conclusion for sentencing with evidence from the case, considering any possible factors calling for a higher sentence, or a lesser sentence (mitigating factors).

2. Write an essay supporting your argument either that Shawn Evans should be convicted or should be found not guilty, and on which charges. Support your statements as you would before the court.

3. Research the actual historical shootout in Glenville of 1968 and write an essay about whether you believe Fred Ahmed Evans was guilty. Support your argument with facts asserted at trial.

4. Write an essay on the history of Carl Stokes life in politics. What were his key accomplishments in office? His main challenges?

5. Write an essay exploring one or more of the following quotes by civil rights leaders, explaining whether you agree or disagree and why.

a. “We will be nonviolent with those who are nonviolent with us. But if a four-legged dog attacks me for demanding rights that I’m deserved because I’m a human being, I’m going to shoot that dog. And then I’m going to shoot the dog’s owner who allowed it to attack me. I don’t call it violence when it’s in self-defense. I call it intelligence.” – Malcolm X

b. "Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." – Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

c. “When you resort to violence to prove a point, you’ve just experienced a profound failure of imagination.” — Sherman Alexie

d. “The most common way people give up their power is by thinking they don’t have any.” — Alice Walker

e. “We declare our right on this earth…to be a human being, to be respected as a human being, to be given the rights of a human being in this society,

27

on this earth, in this day, which we intend to bring into existence by any means necessary.” – Malcolm X

f. “But it is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it America has failed to hear?… It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice and humanity.”– Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

g. “Fury spends itself pretty quickly when there's no fury facing it.” ― John Robert Lewis

h. "Nobody in the world, nobody in history, has ever gotten their freedom by appealing to the moral sense of people who were oppressing them." — Assata Shakur

i. “Any real change implies the breakup of the world as one has always known it, the loss of all that gave one an identity, the end of safety.” ― James Baldwin

6. The definition of “complicity” or “accomplice liability” is the act of helping or encouraging another individual to commit a crime, also commonly referred to as aiding and abetting. One who is complicit is said to be an accomplice. But, even though an accomplice does not actually commit the crime, their actions helped someone in the commission of the crime. How is this similar or different than the charges of criminal conspiracy in City of Erieland v. Shawn Evans? What are some examples of crimes of complicity? Additional examples of conspiracy? Why does the law punish those who encourage criminal activity but do not necessarily engage in it themselves? Do you agree? Why or why not?

7. The FBI engaged in extensive, ongoing surveillance of civil rights leaders like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and W.E.B. Du Bois, often recruiting local black citizens to infiltrate and spy on their efforts. Research and report on COINTELPRO surveillance operations in the 1960s and 1970s. Besides civil rights leaders, who else did they target? Do you agree with their motivations or their methods? What would you do differently if you were the U.S. president or head of the FBI? What lasting effects did COINTELPRO activities have on the movements they monitored and/or interfered with?

8. The Southern Poverty Law Center (www.SPLC.org) has recently published an interactive “hate map” that lists and locates hate groups across the U.S., where you can learn about what groups are active in your state and how the numbers have changed over time. What defines a hate group? What separates them from a legitimate advocacy group or community organization? Is it their beliefs? Their goals? Their methods? Something else? Explain your research, thoughts, and reasoning.

9. The Black Power Movement emerged in the civil rights era of the 1960s and 1970s with Groups such as the Black Panther Party and the Black Liberation

28

Army. The Movement emphasized racial pride, self-advocacy, economic empowerment, and the creation of political and cultural institutions for African-American people in the United States. Choose a group from the Movement and research its history. How did it form? What were its ideals and goals? Did group members promote community efforts like food, education, healthcare? Did they arm themselves or advocate violence? Is there a group or groups like them today?

10. Another nationally-famous incident of violence in Cleveland streets is known as the Hough Riots in 1966. During the riots, four African Americans were killed and 50 people were injured. There were 275 arrests and numerous incidents of arson and fire-bombings that destroyed businesses and caused upwards of $7.7 million in property damage in current dollars. The rioting led the Ohio governor to declare a state of emergency and send more than 2,200 National Guards to Cleveland. What were the purported causes of the riots? How did the authorities, from Cleveland mayor Ralph Locher and the city police, to the Ohio governor, to the President and Vice President of the United States, respond? How did Carl Stokes and many African-American community leaders respond? If you were Cleveland mayor at the time, what would you have done? Do you think that conditions in Cleveland’s neighborhoods are such that something like the Hough riots or the Glenville shootout could happen today? Why or why not?

29

COMPETITION INSTRUCTIONS

The Mock Trial Competition will be held on Friday, May 17, 2019 at the Cleveland Municipal Court in the Justice Center, 1200 Ontario Street, Cleveland, Ohio. There will be two trial sessions: 9:00-11:00 a.m. and 12:00-2:00 p.m. The awards ceremony will take place following the second session at approximately 2:30 p.m. Lunch will not be provided; however, special arrangements with the cafeteria at the Justice Center have been made and it will be open and available from 11:00 until 12:00 if students wish to purchase lunch. There is no limit to the number of teams from each school that may enter the competition. The purpose of the competition is to maximize student involvement and give as many students who wish to participate the opportunity to do so. In order for the necessary arrangements for the competition to be made, each school must submit its entry form(s) to Gayle Gadison at the Cleveland School Administration Building on or before April 26, 2019. Forms may be submitted by fax to (216) 858-6502 or by email to

LaVora.Gadison@clevelandmetroschools.org. A separate entry form for each team should be

submitted.

Team Membership and Roles At competition, each team will conduct the mock trial twice, once as the prosecution and once as the defense. At the competition a mock trial team may consist of a minimum of six and up to 17 students.

* In

this case, there are three possible witnesses who may be called for the prosecution and three for the defense. Each team may use up to five attorneys for each side played. Each team will also have a bailiff who will also serve as the timekeeper. Thus, the possible roles for each team are as follows: Prosecution Defense

1. Attorney (Opening Statement) 2. Attorney (Opening Statement) 3. Attorney (Witness Examination) 4. Attorney (Witness Examination) 5. Attorney (Witness Examination) 6. Attorney (Witness Examination) 7. Attorney (Witness Examination) 8. Attorney (Witness Examination) 9. Attorney (Closing Argument) 10. Attorney (Closing Argument) 11. Prosecution (Witness #1) 12. Defense (Witness #1) 13. Prosecution (Witness #2) 14. Defense (Witness #2) 15. Prosecution (Witness #3) 16. Defense (Witness #3) 17. Bailiff/Timekeeper

Although each team is encouraged to maximize student participation, at the discretion of each teacher, attorney roles may be combined and one student may, for example, conduct more than one witness examination or do both a witness examination and make one of the arguments. Each team, however, must use all three witnesses, use at least two attorneys for each side played, and supply a bailiff/timekeeper. Only the attorney who conducts the direct examination of a witness may make objections during the cross-examination of that witness.

The student presentations should be the work product of the students themselves – guided, of course, by the teacher and team legal advisor(s). It is important that the opening, direct examination, testimony, or whatever the particular presentation should be the student’s work rather than having the student simply read the words prepared by an adult. Before the start of each trial, teams should give to judges a completed team roster with students’ names and their roles at trial. Judges will rely on these rosters to identify the Outstanding Attorney and Outstanding Witness from the trial – please write clearly and legibly. Blank rosters will be distributed electronically before the competition and will also be available on-site.

* Please include any additional student who participates in the training for the mock trial competition regardless of whether they play a role at

the actual competition so they may also receive a Certificate of Participation.

30

Time Limits A trial is scheduled to last no longer than two hours. The presiding judge will enforce the time limit and may at his or her discretion grant a time extension in the interest of fairness. Each team will supply a student timekeeper who will show cards with 2:00, 1:00 or 0:00 minutes remaining. The time clock will stop for objections and responses.

Conduct During Trial and Trial Sequence The presiding judge controls the courtroom. The judge may ask anyone to leave, if necessary. During the trial, teachers, legal advisors and all other observers may NOT talk to, signal or otherwise communicate with or coach their teams. This restriction includes any breaks during the trial. Only furnishings and equipment available in the courtroom may be used during the trial. At the conclusion of the trial, all tables, chairs and any other courtroom furniture and equipment are to be returned to the place where they were found at the beginning of the proceedings. Nothing is to be removed from the courtroom. The bailiff will open court by saying:

All rise. Hear ye, hear ye, this Honorable Court for the City of Erieland is open pursuant to adjournment. All having business before this Honorable Court draw near, give attention and you shall be heard. You may be seated.

All judges are to be addressed as “Judge ______” or “Your Honor.” The bailiff will swear in each witness by saying:

Please raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and that your testimony will comply with the Rules of the Cleveland Mock Trial Competition?

Witnesses answer and sit down. They will remain in the courtroom during the trial. No motion for separation of witnesses will be entertained.

Opening Statements (3 minutes maximum)

The presiding judge should ask counsel for the prosecution if they wish to make an opening statement. Prosecution counsel should introduce themselves and their team members and the roles they are playing and then present the opening statement. The same procedure is used with defendant’s counsel.

Testimony of Witnesses The prosecution will present its case first. The presiding judge will ask counsel to call their first witness. The witness will then testify in the following examination sequence: Direct (6 minutes) Cross (5 minutes) Redirect (2 minutes) Re-cross (2 minutes)

The prosecution will call its remaining two witnesses using the same sequence for each. Upon conclusion of the prosecution’s case, the prosecution will rest. The presiding judge will then ask counsel for the defense to call his/her first witness. The defense team will follow the same sequence as noted above. Witnesses are bound by their written statements. If there is inconsistency or ambiguity between the case summary and the witness statement, the witness is to rely upon the information contained in the witness statement. Fair extrapolations are permitted if they are consistent with the facts contained in the case materials and do not materially affect the witness’s testimony. If a witness invents an answer that is likely to affect the outcome of the trial, the opposition may object. Teams that intentionally and frequently stray outside the case materials may be penalized.

31

If an attorney who is cross-examining a witness asks a question, the answer to which is not included in the witness’s written statement, the witness is free to “create” an answer as long as it is not contrary to the statement. If the answer is contrary to the statement, the cross-examination attorney may impeach, or in other words, attack the credibility of the witness. The trial proceedings are governed by the Modified Rules of Evidence found in this casebook.

Closing Argument (4 minutes maximum for each)

The prosecution will be allowed 2 minutes rebuttal.

Objections In addition to evidentiary objections, objection may be made during trial by an attorney who believes that any rule set forth in the Competition instructions has been violated. As with evidentiary objections, the objection must be made as soon as the claimed violation occurs. If no objection is made at the time of the claimed violation, the attorney knew or should have known of the violation at that time, the right to object is waived. The presiding judge may make rulings as appear appropriate. All judges will not interpret the rules and guidelines in the same way. The judge’s decision, however, is final and no appeals procedure is available.

Conclusion of Trial The judicial panelists will retire to chambers to discuss their decision and complete the score sheets upon conclusion of the trial and return it to the competition coordinator. The scoring panelists will announce the outstanding witness and attorney awards, discuss the highlights of their performances, and present their certificates. The judicial panelists may discuss the case and make remarks to the teams at the conclusion of the trial but will not discuss the scoring. The bailiff will close the proceedings at the judicial panelists’ signal with:

“All rise. This honorable court is hereby adjourned.”

Judging and Scoring Each trial will be presented before a judicial panel consisting of a Presiding Judge and two Scoring Judges. The Presiding Judge will control the courtroom and rule on motions and objections, and will complete a ballot along with the ballots of the two Scoring Judges, based on their evaluations of the team and individual performances. The trial will be judged based on team and individual performances, not the merits of the case. The two scoring panelists and the presiding panelist will separately rate the Prosecution and Defense teams, assigning points from 6-90 based on the following factors:

1. Opening Statement (1-10 points possible) 2. Witnesses’ Performances (1-30 points possible) 3. Attorneys’ Performances on Direct (1-10 points possible) 4. Attorneys’ Performances on Cross (1-10 points possible) 5. Closing Statement (1-10 points possible) 6. Team Performance (1-20 points possible)

Judicial panelists will score individual performances based on the following guidelines:

Ability to think well on feet, be logical, keep poise under duress

Ability to sort out essential from the nonessential and use time effectively to accomplish major objectives

Mastery of elements of the case: utilization of all resources to contribute to the team’s position

Quality of communication in terms of fluency, persuasiveness, clearness and understandability

Depth of performance in terms of knowledge of task and materials

32

Judicial panelists will score team performances based on the following guidelines:

The development and validity of the case theory (Did the prosecution/defense team establish a theme for their argument? Was the theme valid?)

The choice and development of case strategy (Did the prosecution/ defense team select the appropriate form of questioning used for direct examination and cross-examination?)

The degree of a team’s persuasiveness (Was the team’s case carefully crafted and skillfully delivered? Were team members prepared and direct in their roles?)

The quality and authenticity of the student’s own work product (Does the student presentation appear to be the work product of the student?)

In judging the performance of witnesses, judges should consider whether the witness was:

Believable in his/her characterizations and convincing in testimony

Articulate and responsive

Observant of proper courtroom decorum

Knowledgeable of the case facts and theory of the team’s case

Faithful to the case facts and did not invent new facts In judging the performance of attorneys, judges should consider the following elements:

A creative, organized, and convincing presentation

Observation of proper courtroom decorum

A clear understanding of the facts, issues, law and rules of Cleveland Mock Trial

Ability to apply authority and law to facts

Proper phrasing of questions and objections

Appropriate presentation style

Poise and ability to think on his/her feet, extemporaneous (not scripted) delivery, eye contact (ability to proceed without reading from prepared materials)

Bonus Points for exceptional attorneys and witnesses (1-20 additional points possible but NOT mandatory): Judges at their discretion may award an attorney and/or witness who they feel has given an extraordinary performance 1-20 bonus points, to be indicated in the Bonus Points section of the score sheet along with the student(s) name(s). These points are NOT mandatory, and are NOT to be included with the team’s overall score. The points are to aid the Competition Coordinators in determining which students have received the best scores of the Competition considered as a whole in the categories of Outstanding Attorney for the Prosecution, Outstanding Attorney for the Defense, and Outstanding Witness for the Competition. Penalties: Points should be deducted from the Team Performance Score for:

Consistently abusing the time limits (1 point)

Failing to use attorneys as prescribed (1 point)

Intentionally and frequently straying outside the case materials (1 point)

Communication during trial between team members and their teacher, legal advisor or any observer (1 point)

Outstanding Attorney and Witness Awards: Judicial panelists should consult at the conclusion of the trial to determine the Outstanding Attorney and Outstanding Witness of the trial. Awards should be based on individual performances – they are not to be used as a consolation prize, but awarded on merit. All three judicial panelists will complete a ballot. Based on point totals ONLY, each panelist will find a winner from his/her ballot (no ties on individual ballots allowed). Teams that have won at least two of the panel’s ballots have won the trial. Teams will perform one trial as the Prosecution and one trial as the Defense. Teams that have won both of the two trials will be deemed “Finalists.” Ranking among the finalists will be determined by overall point total from all ballots for the teams. In the event of a tie, additional points will be added to team scores based on the awards for Outstanding Attorney and Outstanding Witness, with five points added for each award won. The team with the highest score will be declared the winner of the competition. The scores

33

will be tabulated and the top three teams announced at the conclusion of the competition. After the competition, non-Finalists will be informed of their overall performance (e.g. winner of first but not second trial). Finalists will be informed of their ranking among the other Finalist teams.

All participants must be mindful that the regular business of the court

will be continuing during Mock Trial Competition. Conversations and noise in the hallways should be limited

accordingly.

34

Sample Scoresheet

35

SIMPLIFIED OHIO RULES OF EVIDENCE

Rules Unique to Mock Trial I. Invention of Facts and Extrapolation (special rules for the Mock Trial Competition) The object of these rules is to prevent a team from “creating” facts not in the material to gain an unfair advantage over the opposing team. Invention of Facts - Direct Examination. On direct examination the witness is limited to the facts given in his/her own written statement. If the witness goes beyond the facts given (adds new facts or speculates about facts), the testimony may be objected to by the opposing counsel as speculation or as invention of facts outside the case materials. If a witness testifies in contradiction of a fact given in the witness statement, opposing counsel should impeach the witness’s testimony during cross-examination. [See also, Competition Instructions, “Testimony of Witnesses—Guidelines.”] Invention of Facts - Cross-Examination. If on cross-examination a witness is asked a question, the answer to which is not contained in the facts given in the witness statement, the witness may respond with any answer, so long as it is responsive to the question, does not contain unnecessary elaboration beyond the scope of the witness statement, and does not contradict the witness statement. An answer which is unresponsive or unnecessarily elaborate may be objected to by the cross-examining attorney. An answer which is contrary to the witness statement may be impeached by the cross-examining attorney. [See also, Competition Instructions, “Testimony of Witnesses—Guidelines”]. Example The limits on fair extrapolation apply only to cross examination, and no extrapolation is permitted on direct examination. An accident reconstruction expert (Mr. Smith) has testified that the accident was caused by the failure of the defendant to maintain an assured clear distance ahead. The defendant has claimed that he was undergoing a type of epileptic seizure when the driver ahead stopped abruptly. The accident reconstructionist testifies that even a person experiencing this kind of epileptic seizure would have seen the car brake abruptly. 1. Unnecessary Elaboration Cross-examiner: “But you’re not a neurologist, are you, Mr. Smith?” Mr. Smith: “As a matter of fact, I have a Ph.D. in Neurology from Johns Hopkins

University and have written extensively on epileptic seizures...” If there is no hint in the case materials that Mr. Smith has expertise in neurology, it would be regarded as an unnecessary elaboration 2. Elaboration necessitated by the Question Cross-examiner: “Have you testified before as an expert in accident reconstruction, or is

this the first time that you have ever testified?” Mr. Smith: “I have testified in 27 trials.” It may be reasonable for the expert to claim he has testified in 27 trials, if his age and background make that plausible, even if there is nothing in the case materials to reflect an answer to that question. It is an elaboration necessitated by the question.

36

II. Scope of Examinations Scope of Direct Examination An attorney questions the witness she/he has called to stand. On direct examination an attorney may inquire as to any relevant facts of which the witness has first-hand, personal knowledge. Scope of Cross Examination The scope of cross-examination shall not be limited to the scope of the direct examination, but may inquire into any relevant facts or matters contained in the witness’s statement, including all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from those facts and matters, and may inquire into any omissions from the witness statement that are otherwise material and admissible. Redirect Examination After cross examination, additional questions may be asked by the direct examining attorney, but such questions are limited to matters raised by the opposing attorney on cross-examination. Just as on direct examination, leading questions are not permitted on redirect. Comment: If the credibility or reputation for truthfulness of the witness has been attacked successfully on cross-examination, the attorney whose witness has been damaged may wish to ask questions to “rehabilitate” the witness (save the witness’s truth-telling image). Redirect examination may also be used to strengthen a positive fact that was weakened by the cross-examination. Redirect examination is not required. A good rule to follow is: if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it. Examples: 1. Cross-examination of physician called by Plaintiff in murder case:

Attorney: Doctor, you testified on direct that the defendant died of arsenic poisoning, correct?

Witness: Yes. Attorney: Isn’t it true that you have a deposition in which you

testified that you did not know the cause of death? Witness: Yes, that’s true.

Redirect: Attorney: Doctor, why did you testify in your deposition that

you did not know the defendant’s cause of death? Witness: I had not yet received all of the test results which

allowed me to conclude the defendant died of arsenic poisoning. 2. Cross-examination:

Attorney: Doctor, isn’t it true the result of test X points away from a finding of arsenic poisoning?

Witness: Yes. Redirect: Attorney: Doctor, why did you conclude that the defendant died of arsenic

poisoning even though test X pointed away from arsenic poisoning? Witness: Because all of the other test results so overwhelmingly pointed toward

arsenic poisoning, and because test X isn’t always reliable. Comment: Neither one of these redirect examinations should have been conducted unless the attorney had a good idea of what the witness’s response would be. As a general rule, it is not advisable to ask a question if you don’t know what the answer will be. Re-cross Examination After redirect, additional questions may be asked by the cross examining attorney, but such questions are limited to matters raised on redirect examination.

37

Re-cross is not mandatory and should not be used simply to repeat points that have already been made. Example: Assume the cross-examination in the example above has occurred. A good re-cross-examination would be the following: Attorney: Doctor, isn’t it true that when you gave your deposition you

had received all of the test results except the result of test X? Witness: Yes, that’s true. Comment: The cross-examining attorney would then argue in the closing argument that the doctor testified in his deposition that he did not know the cause of death at that time and the only test result received after the deposition pointed away from arsenic poisoning.

III. Hostile Witness Rule- Mode and Order of Interrogation and Presentation

1. Control by court. The court shall exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of

interrogating witnesses and presenting evidence so as to (1) make the interrogation and presentation effective for the ascertainment of the truth, (2) avoid needless consumption of time, and (3) protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment.

2. Scope of cross-examination. Cross-examination shall be permitted on all relevant matters and matters affecting credibility.

3. Leading questions. Leading questions should not be used on the direct examination of a witness except as may be necessary to develop the testimony. Ordinarily, leading questions should be permitted on cross-examination. When a party calls a hostile witness, an adverse party, or a witness identified with an adverse party, interrogation may be by leading questions.

4. When is a witness hostile? “Where a witness is an unwilling one, hostile to the party calling him, or stands in such a situation as to make him necessarily adverse to such party, his examination in chief may be allowed to assume something of the form of cross-examination, at least to the extent of allowing leading questions to be put to him.” 44 OH Jurisprudence 3d 241, “hostile witness” §. 869

The issue is whether the witness’s hostile attitude toward the party calling them is likely to make the witness reluctant to volunteer facts helpful to that party. Hostility may be demonstrated by the witness’s demeanor in the courtroom, by other facts and circumstances, or by a combination thereof. Whether a witness is hostile is confided to the sound discretion of the presiding judge. IV. Voir Dire Voir Dire examination of a witness is not permitted. V. No offer of proof No offers of proof may be requested or tendered.

38

Article I. GENERAL PROVISIONS

RULE 101. Scope of Rules: Applicability; Privileges; Exceptions Applicability. These rules govern proceedings in the Ohio Mock Trial Program and are the only basis for objections in the Ohio Mock Trial Program.

No directed verdict or dismissal motion may be entertained. Article II. RELEVANCY AND ITS LIMITS RULE 201. Definition of "Relevant Evidence" "Relevant evidence" means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. RULE 202. Relevant Evidence Generally Admissible; Irrelevant Evidence Inadmissible Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible. RULE 203. Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice, Confusion, or Undue Delay

(A) Exclusion mandatory. Although relevant, evidence is not admissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, of confusion of the issues, or of misleading the jury. (B) Exclusion discretionary. Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by considerations of undue delay, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.

RULE 204. Character Character evidence. Evidence of a person's character, other than his/her character for truthfulness, may not be introduced. Evidence about the character of a party for truthfulness or untruthfulness is only admissible if the party testifies. Article III. WITNESSES RULE 301. General Rule of Competency Every person is competent to be a witness. RULE 302. Lack of Personal Knowledge A witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that S/he has personal knowledge of the matter. Evidence to prove personal knowledge may, but need not, consist of the testimony of the witness. This rule is subject to the provisions of Rule 703, relating to opinion testimony by expert witnesses. RULE 303. Who May Impeach (A) Who may impeach. The credibility of a witness may be attacked by any party except that the credibility of a witness may be attacked by the party calling the witness by means of a prior inconsistent statement only upon a showing of surprise and affirmative damage. This exception does not apply to statements admitted pursuant to Evid.R. 801(D)(1)(A), 801(D)(2), or 803. RULE 304. Evidence of Character and Conduct of Witness Opinion and reputation evidence of character. The credibility of a witness may be attacked or supported by evidence in the form of opinion or reputation, but subject to these limitations: (1) the evidence may refer only to character for truthfulness or untruthfulness, and (2) evidence of

39

truthful character is admissible only after the character of the witness for truthfulness has been attacked by opinion or reputation evidence or otherwise. RULE 305. Mode and Order of Interrogation and Presentation

(A) Control by court. The court shall exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of interrogating witnesses and presenting evidence so as to (1) make the interrogation and presentation effective for the ascertainment of the truth, (2) avoid needless consumption of time, and (3) protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment. (B) Scope of cross-examination. For Ohio Mock Trial Rules, see Simplified Ohio Rules of Evidence (Section II). (C) Leading questions. Leading questions should not be used on the direct examination of a witness. Leading questions are permitted on cross-examination. When a party calls a hostile witness interrogation may be by leading questions.

RULE 306. Writing Used to Refresh Memory If a witness uses a writing to refresh his memory while testifying, an adverse party is entitled to have the writing produced at the hearing. He/she is also entitled to inspect it, to cross-examine the witness thereon, and to introduce in evidence those portions which relate to the testimony of the witness. RULE 307. Bias of Witness In addition to other methods, a witness may be impeached by any of the following methods:

(A) Bias. Bias, prejudice, interest, or any motive to misrepresent may be shown to impeach the witness either by examination of the witness or by extrinsic evidence. (B) Sensory or mental defect. A defect of capacity, ability, or opportunity to observe, remember, or relate may be shown to impeach the witness either by examination of the witness or by extrinsic evidence. (C) Specific contradiction. Facts contradicting a witness's testimony may be shown for the purpose of impeaching the witness's testimony.

Article IV. OPINIONS AND EXPERT TESTIMONY RULE 401. Opinion Testimony by Lay Witnesses If the witness is not testifying as an expert, his/her testimony in the form of opinions or inferences is limited to those opinions or inferences which are (1) rationally based on the perception of the witness and (2) helpful to a clear understanding of his testimony or the determination of a fact in issue. RULE 402. Testimony by Experts A witness may testify as an expert if: (1) The witness is qualified as an expert by specialized knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education regarding the subject matter of the testimony; and (2) The witness's testimony is based on reliable scientific, technical, or other specialized information. RULE 403. Bases of Opinion Testimony by Experts The facts or data in the particular case upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by the expert or admitted in evidence at the hearing. RULE 404. Opinion on Ultimate Issue Testimony in the form of an opinion or inference otherwise admissible is not objectionable solely because it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact.

40

RULE 405. Disclosure of Facts or Data Underlying Expert Opinion The expert may testify in terms of opinion or inference and give his/her reasons therefore after disclosure of the underlying facts or data. The disclosure may be in response to a hypothetical question or otherwise. Article V. HEARSAY RULE 501. Definitions The following definitions apply under this article:

(A) Statement. A "statement" is (1) an oral or written assertion or (2) nonverbal conduct of a person, if it is intended by him as an assertion. (B) Declarant. A "declarant" is a person who makes a statement. (C) Hearsay. "Hearsay" is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. (D) Statements which are not hearsay. A statement is not hearsay if:

(1) Prior statement by witness. The declarant testifies at trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and the statement is (a) inconsistent with his testimony, and was given under oath subject to cross-examination by the party against whom the statement is offered and subject to the penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in a deposition, or (b) consistent with his testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge against him of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive, or (c) one of identification of a person soon after perceiving him, if the circumstances demonstrate the reliability of the prior identification. (2) Admission by party-opponent. The statement is offered against a party and is (a) his own statement, in either his individual or a representative capacity, or (b) a statement of which he has manifested his adoption or belief in its truth, or (c) a statement by a person authorized by him to make a statement concerning the subject, or (d) a statement by his agent or servant concerning a matter within the scope of his agency or employment, made during the existence of the relationship, or (e) a statement by a co-conspirator of a party during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy upon independent proof of the conspiracy.

RULE 502. Hearsay Rule Testimony which is hearsay is inadmissible. RULE 503. Hearsay Exceptions; Availability of Declarant Immaterial The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness:

(1) Present sense impression. A statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while the declarant was perceiving the event or condition, or immediately thereafter unless circumstances indicate lack of trustworthiness. (2) Excited utterance. A statement relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition. (3) Then existing, mental, emotional, or physical condition. A statement of the declarant's then existing state of mind, emotion, sensation, or physical condition (such as intent, plan, motive, design, mental feeling, pain, and bodily health), but not including a statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed unless it relates to the execution, revocation, identification, or terms of declarant's will.

41

(4) Statements for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment. Statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment and describing medical history, or past or present symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the inception or general character of the cause or external source thereof insofar as reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment. (5) Records of regularly conducted activity. A memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, in any form, of acts, events, or conditions, made at or near the time by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge, if kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity, and if it was the regular practice of that business activity to make the memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, all as shown by testimony.

RULE 504. Hearsay Exceptions; Declarant Unavailable

(A) Definition of unavailability. "Unavailability as a witness" includes any of the following situations in which the declarant:

(1) is unable to be present or to testify at the hearing because of death or then-existing physical or mental illness or infirmity;

(B) Hearsay exceptions. The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule if the declarant is unavailable as a witness:

(1) Statement under belief of impending death. In a prosecution for homicide or in a civil action or proceeding, a statement made by a declarant, while believing that his or her death was imminent, concerning the cause or circumstances of what the declarant believed to be his or her impending death. (2) Statement against interest. A statement that was at the time of its making so far contrary to the declarant's pecuniary or proprietary interest, or so far tended to subject the declarant to civil or criminal liability, or to render invalid a claim by the declarant against another, that a reasonable person in the declarant's position would not have made the statement unless the declarant believed it to be true. A statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability, whether offered to exculpate or inculpate the accused, is not admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement.

RULE 505. Hearsay Within Hearsay Hearsay included within hearsay is not excluded under the hearsay rule if each part of the combined statements conforms with an exception to the hearsay rule provided in these rules. Article VI. AUTHENTICATION AND IDENTIFICATION RULE 601. Requirement of Authentication or Identification General provision. The requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.

42

EXAMPLES OF COMMON OBJECTIONS AND TRIAL PROCEDURE

I. Procedure for Objections An attorney may object if they believe that the opposing attorney is attempting to introduce improper evidence or is violating the Simplified Rules of Evidence. The attorney wishing to object should stand up and object at the time of the claimed violation. The attorney should state the reason for the objection, and if possible, cite by rule number the specific rule of evidence that has been violated. (Note: Only the attorney who questions a witness may object to the questions posed to that witness by opposing counsel.) The attorney who asked the question may then make a statement about why the question is proper. The judge will then decide whether a question or answer must be discarded because it has violated a simplified rule of evidence (objection sustained), or whether to allow the question or answer to remain in the trial record (objection overruled). Objections should be made as soon as possible; however, an attorney is allowed to finish his/her question before an objection is made. Any objection that is not made at the time of the claimed violation is waived. When an objection has been sustained, the attorney who asked the question may attempt to rephrase that question. Judges may make rulings that seem wrong to you. Also, different judges may rule differently on the same objection. Always accept the judge’s ruling graciously and courteously. Do not argue the point further after a ruling has been made. II. Examples of Common Objections The following are examples of common objections. This is not a complete list. Any objection properly based on the simplified Ohio rules of evidence is permitted:

1. Irrelevant evidence: "Objection. This testimony is irrelevant." 2. Irrelevant evidence that should be excluded:

"Objection. This is unfairly prejudicial (or a waste of time) and should be excluded because…”

3. Leading question: "Objection. Counsel is leading the witness." (Remember, leading is only objectionable if done on direct or redirect examination).

4. Narrative Answer: "Objection, this witness's answer is narrative" Commonly used on direct examination when a witness's answer has gone beyond the scope of the initial question

5. Non-responsive Answer: "The witness is nonresponsive, your honor. I ask that this answer be stricken from the record."

The witness's answer does not answer the question being asked. Commonly used by the cross-examining attorney during cross examination. Example: Attorney: Isn’t it true that you hit student B? Witness: Student B hit me first. He/she was asking for it, acting like a jerk and

humiliating me in front of all my friends. Attorney: Your Honor, I move to strike the witness’s answer as non-responsive and

ask that he/she be instructed to answer the question asked. (Another option is to impeach the witness with prior testimony if he/she testified in his his/her deposition that he/she hit student B.)

6. Beyond the scope of cross or redirect: "Objection. Counsel is asking the witness about matters that were not raised during the cross or redirect examination."

7. Improper character testimony: "Objection. This is testimony about character that does not relate to truthfulness or untruthfulness."

43

8. Improper opinion: "Objection. Counsel is asking the witness to give an expert opinion, and this witness has not been qualified as an expert." OR "Objection. Counsel’s question calls for an opinion which would not be helpful to understanding the witness’s testimony (or which is not rationally based upon what the witness perceived.)"

9. Invention of facts: "Your Honor, we object on the basis that opposing counsel’s question seeks evidence that is outside the record in this case. Witness X has never given testimony in this case concerning…" If the witness gives testimony on direct that is beyond the scope of materials, the cross-examining attorney should say "move to strike the testimony concerning…as beyond the scope of the case materials." Example: If witness X did not personally see arsenic in the medicine cabinet of the decedent’s wife, he cannot testify that she had arsenic in her medicine cabinet.

10. Lack of personal knowledge: “Objection.” The witness has no personal knowledge that would allow her to answer this question.

11. Speculation: "Objection. The witness is speculating/this question calls for speculation." A hybrid between lack of personal knowledge and improper opinion.

12. Hearsay: "Objection. Counsel’s question calls for hearsay." If a hearsay response could not be anticipated from the question, or if a hearsay response is given before the attorney has a chance to object, the attorney should say, "I ask that the witness’s answer be stricken from the record on the basis of hearsay." Example: Witness X testifies that “Mrs. Smith said that the decedent’s wife had a bottle of arsenic in her medicine cabinet.” This testimony is inadmissible if offered to prove that the decedent’s wife had a bottle of arsenic in her medicine cabinet, since it is being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the out-of-court statement by Mrs. Smith. If, however, the testimony is offered to prove that Mrs. Smith can speak English, then the testimony is not hearsay because it is not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the out-of-court statement. However, the testimony is only admissible if Mrs. Smith’s ability to speak English is relevant to the case. Comment: Why should the complicated and confusing condition be added that the out-of-court statement is only hearsay when “offered for the truth of the matter asserted”? The answer is that hearsay is considered untrustworthy because the speaker of the out-of-court statement has not been placed under oath and cannot be cross-examined concerning his/her credibility. In the previous example, Mrs. Smith cannot be cross-examined concerning her statement that the decedent’s wife had a bottle of arsenic in her medicine cabinet, since witness X, and not Mrs. Smith has been called to give this testimony. However, witness X has been placed under oath and can be cross-examined about whether Mrs. Smith actually made this statement, thus demonstrating that she could speak English. When offered to prove that Mrs. Smith could speak English, witness X’s testimony about her out-of-court statement is not hearsay. Remember, there are responses to many of these objections that the examining attorney can make after the objection is raised and he or she is recognized by the judge to respond.

III. Other Trial Procedures A. Opening Statement

An opening statement has been defined as “a concise statement of [the party’s] claim [or defense] and a brief statement of [the party’s] evidence to support it.” Judge Richard M. Markus, Trial Handbook for Ohio Lawyers (Thomson-West, 2006 Edition), §7:1, p.

44

305. A party seeking relief should indicate the nature of the relief sought. It may be useful to acknowledge the applicable burden, or burdens, of proof. An opening statement is not supposed to be argumentative, and should be used by attorneys to present their theories of the case. Legal authorities can be cited, to show what issue or issues are before the court for decision. It is appropriate to lay out what the attorney expects the evidence will show, but the wise attorney will be conservative in this regard. The most important aspect of the opening statement is to frame the issues. The attorney wants to frame the issues so that there is a compelling narrative (the theory of the case) in his/her client’s favor into which all the favorable facts and all favorable legal authority neatly fit. A well-crafted opening statement tells a story that will dominate the trial that follows.

B. Closing Statements

Closing statements, “are permitted for the purpose of aiding the [finder of fact] in analyzing all the evidence and assisting it in determining the facts of the case.” Markus, op. cit., §35:1, at p. 1013. In a bench trial (to a judge, rather than to a jury), the closing statement is also the time to argue the law to the judge. The attorney should point out to the court that his/her side has proven everything that it promised to prove, while pointing out that the other side failed to prove what it promised it would. It can now be shown how the evidence that was presented fits into the narrative (the theory of the case) that was introduced in opening statement, which, in turn, applying the law, compels a result in that side’s favor. Remind the court what that favorable result is; i.e., the particular relief your client is seeking from the court. On occasion, your evidence won’t survive an objection, or the attorney’s best witness will be forced to equivocate on an important point on cross-examination. When this occurs adjustments have to be made to the closing statement to fit the evidence actually presented in the trial. The closing statements are the final opportunities to persuade the judge. In oral presentation, the statements having the most impact are the first statements, and the final statements. The attorney should try to make the first and last things said in closing argument the most vivid and persuasive, while reserving those points that have less emotional impact, but need to be said, for the middle of the statement.

C. Direct Examination - Form of Questions

Witnesses should be asked neutral questions and may not be asked leading questions on direct examination. Neutral questions are open-ended questions that do not suggest the answer and that usually invite the witness to give a narrative response. A leading question is one that suggests to the witness the answer desired by the examining attorney and often suggests a “yes” or “no” answer.

Examples: 1. Proper direct examination questions: a. What did you see? b. What happened next? 2. Leading questions (not permitted on direct): a. Isn’t it true that you saw the defendant run into the alley? b. After you saw the defendant run into the alley, you called the

police, didn’t you?

45

D. Cross Examination - Form of Questions An attorney should usually, if not always, ask leading questions when cross-examining the opponent’s witness. Open-ended questions tend to evoke a narrative answer, such as “why” or “explain,” and should be avoided. (Leading questions are not permitted on direct examination because it is thought to be unfair for an attorney to suggest answers to a witness whose testimony is already considered to favor that attorney’s side of the case. Leading questions are encouraged on cross-examination because witnesses called by the opposing side may be reluctant to admit facts that favor the cross-examining attorney’s side of the case.) However, it is not a violation of this rule to ask a non-leading question on cross-examination. Examples:

1. Good leading cross-examination question: Isn’t it true that it was almost completely dark outside when you say you saw the defendant run into the alley? (This is a good question where the witness’s statement says it was “almost completely dark,” but a potentially dangerous question when the statement says it was “getting pretty dark out.”

2. Poor cross-examination question: How dark was it when you saw the defendant run into the alley? (The witness could answer, “It wasn’t completely dark. I could see him.”)

E. Opinion Testimony by Non-Experts

For mock trial purposes, most witnesses are non-experts. If a witness is a non-expert, the witness’s testimony in the form of opinions is limited to opinions that are rationally based on what the witness saw or heard and that are helpful in explaining the witness’s testimony. Non-experts (lay witnesses) are considered qualified to reach certain types of conclusions or opinions about matters which do not require experience or knowledge beyond that of the average lay person. Note, however, that the opinion must be rationally based on what the witness saw or heard and must be helpful in understanding the witness’s testimony.

Examples: 1. Witness X, a non-expert, may testify that the defendant appeared under

the influence of alcohol. However, it must be shown that this opinion is rationally based on witness X’s observations by bringing out the facts underlying the opinion, e.g., the defendant was stumbling; his breath smelled of alcohol; his speech was slurred. If witness X thinks the defendant was under the influence because he had a strange look in his eye, then the opinion should not be permitted because it is not sufficiently rational and has potential for undue prejudice.

2. Witness X, a non-expert, may not testify that in his opinion the decedent died of arsenic poisoning, since this is not a matter that is within the general knowledge of lay persons. Only an expert, such as a forensic pathologist, is qualified to render such an opinion.

F. Opinion Testimony by Experts

Only persons who are shown to be experts at trial may give opinions on questions that require special knowledge beyond that of ordinary lay persons. An expert must be qualified by the attorney for the party for whom the expert is testifying. Before a witness can testify as an expert, and give opinions in the area of his/her expertise, a foundation must be laid for his/her testimony by introducing his/her qualifications into evidence. In a sense, every witness takes the stand as a non-expert, and the questioning attorney must then establish the witness’s expertise to the court’s satisfaction for the witness to be able to testify as an expert. This is usually accomplished by asking the expert himself/herself about his/her background, training and experience.

46

Example: Attorney: Doctor, please tell the jurors about your educational background.

Witness: I attended Harvard College and Harvard Medical School. Attorney: Do you practice in any particular area of medicine?

Witness: I am board-certified forensic pathologist. I have been a forensic pathologist for 28 years.

It is up to the court to decide whether a witness is qualified to testify as an expert on a particular topic.

G. Refreshing Recollection (Rule 306)

If a witness is unable to recall information in his/her witness statement or contradicts the witness statement, the attorney calling the witness may use the witness statement to help the witness remember.

Example: Witness cannot recall what happened after the defendant ran into the alley or contradicts witness statement on this point:

1. Mr./ Mrs. Witness, do you recall giving a statement in this case? 2. Your Honor may I approach the witness? (Permission is granted.)

I’d like to show you a portion of the summary of your statement, and ask you to review the first two paragraphs on page three.

3. Having had an opportunity to review your statement, do you now recall what happened after the defendant ran into the alley?

H. Impeachment (Rule 303)

On cross-examination, the cross-examining attorney may impeach the witness. Impeachment is a cross-examination technique used to demonstrate that the witness should not be believed. Impeachment is accomplished by asking questions which demonstrate either (1) that the witness has now changed his/her story from statements or testimony given by the witness prior to the trial, or (2) that the witness’s trial testimony should not be believed because the witness is a dishonest and untruthful person. Impeachment differs from the refreshing recollection technique. Refreshing recollection is used during direct examination to steer a favorable, but forgetful, witness back into the beaten path. Impeachment is a cross-examination technique used to discredit a witness’s testimony. Examples:

1. Impeachment with prior inconsistent statement: Attorney: Mr. Jones, you testified on direct that you saw the two cars before

they actually collided, correct? Witness: Yes.

Attorney: You gave a deposition in this case a few months ago, correct? Witness: Yes.

Attorney: Before you gave that deposition, you were sworn in by the bailiff to tell the truth, weren’t you?

Witness: Yes. Attorney: Mr. Jones, in your deposition, you testified that the first thing that

drew your attention to the collision was when you heard a loud crash, isn’t that true?

Witness: I don’t remember saying that. Attorney: Your Honor, may I approach the witness?

(Permission is granted.) Mr. Jones, I’m handing you the summary of your deposition and I’ll ask you to read along as I read the second full paragraph on page

47

two, “I heard a loud crash and I looked over and saw that the two cars had just collided. This was the first time I actually saw the two cars.” Did I read that correctly?

Witness: Yes. Attorney: Thank you Mr. Jones. 2. Impeachment with prior dishonest conduct:

Attorney: Student X, isn’t it true that last fall you were suspended from school for three days for cheating on a test?

Witness: Yes.

I. Introduction of Physical Evidence (Rule 601) Generally, physical evidence (objects) must be relevant and authentic (shown to be what they appear to be) in order to be admissible. Exhibits are generally presented to the court through witness testimony. Specifically, for mock trial purposes, all exhibits contained in the case materials have already been stipulated as admissible evidence and may not be altered to give either side an unfair advantage. This means that both sides have agreed that all exhibits are admitted. Therefore, it is not necessary to demonstrate through a witness’s testimony that an exhibit is authentic, an accurate representation or admissible, nor is it necessary to move the court for the admission of the physical evidence. Example:

Attorney: Your honor, we have marked this one-page document as Plaintiff Exhibit 1 (or Defendant’s Exhibit A). Let the record reflect that I am showing Plaintiff Exhibit 1 (or Defendant’s Exhibit A) to opposing counsel. (Exhibit is shown to opposing counsel.) Your Honor, may I approach the witness?

Judge: You may. Attorney: Witness X, I’m showing you what has been marked as Plaintiff

Exhibit 1. Do you recognize that exhibit? Witness: Yes. Attorney: Could you explain to the Court what that is? Witness: It’s a map of the accident scene. (At this point, the attorney may ask the witness any additional relevant questions about the exhibit, and then give it to the judge.)

48

Courtroom pointers to make the most of your presentation:

I. Dress appropriately: Your personal appearance affects the way people view you and your

performance. Appropriate clothing means business (not casual) dress: for example, a dress, a skirt and jacket, slacks and a jacket, slacks and a shirt and tie.

II. Pre-trial preparation

1. Arrive at the courtroom at least 15 minutes early so that you can acquaint yourself with the layout, make any necessary adjustments and be ready to start the trial exactly on time.

2. The prosecution team sits at the table closest to the jury box, and the defense team sits at the other table.

3. Attorneys should neatly organize their materials on the tables. Get rid of all unnecessary papers, briefcases, pencils and other clutter.

4. Witnesses should seat themselves in separate areas of the spectators’ section. 5. Make sure no team members are chewing gum.

III. Posture: Participants should remember that from the elevated bench, the judge has a good

view of the entire courtroom. Your seating posture has a definite impact on the judge’s impression of you. Attorneys especially need to be conscious of how they are seated. Sit straight but not so stiff as to be uncomfortable. Put your feet flat on the floor or cross your legs in a professional manner. Avoid nervous mannerisms, such as shaking your leg or tapping your pencil.

IV. Decorum

1. Be polite and courteous to the judges, both presiding and scoring. 2. Always stand when talking in court and when the judges enter or leave the room. 3. Always refer to the presiding judge as “Your Honor” and accept rulings graciously

and politely even if they are not in your favor. 4. Behave courteously and respectfully toward the opposing team before, during

and after the trial. 5. Be cordial to witnesses. 6. Emotions are not banned from the courtroom; however, they must be controlled.

It is okay (and may even be part of your trial strategy) to be appropriately indignant, puzzled, etc., but uncontrolled outbursts or wild theatrics are not appreciated by the judging panels and may cost you valuable points.

V. Speak effectively

1. All participants should speak clearly and carefully enunciate each word. 2. For attorneys, all speaking is done from a standing position. For witnesses,

speaking is done in a seated position from the witness stand. 3. If you are an attorney and are addressed by the court, stand promptly before

responding. VI. Deliver your best opening statement or closing argument

1. Organize any materials before beginning. 2. Rise slowly. 3. With confidence, walk slowly, yet deliberately, to the podium or the area from

which you will deliver the opening or closing. 4. Assume good speech-making posture. Your feet should be set apart a bit and

your weight balanced on the balls of your feet. 5. Before your first word, look the judge directly and say, “May it please the court”

and begin to speak directly to the members of the jury (scoring judges).

49

6. Try for a conversational tone in your voice. Speak to the judges in a clear voice that is slow enough and loud enough for them to follow your ideas without straining.

7. Avoid using slang and always use your very best vocabulary. 8. Use variety in your delivery. You can emphasize major points in several different

ways, e.g. pause before an important idea, raise your volume slightly to accentuate an important idea, or slow down to draw attention to an important idea.

9. Natural gestures are always good to emphasize ideas. They will come instinctively if your focus is on talking to the judges. Do not force gestures and always avoid repetitive or unnecessary gestures.

10. Be aware that judges may interrupt during your closing statement and ask you a question. Pause, listen carefully to the question, then answer to the best of your ability. The most important thing is to maintain your poise.

11. When you have concluded your presentation, say, “Thank you, your honors,” while looking directly at the presiding judge. Pause briefly and then take your seat. Show no signs of relief and do not immediately turn to speak to co-counsel. Always maintain that aura of poise and confidence.

VII. Question witnesses skillfully

1. Always rise to do the questioning. 2. You may have questions written out, but be ready to adapt when objections are

made or when a witness does not respond as you had expected. 3. Speak slowly and clearly. 4. Listen to the witness’s response. S/he may not say what you had anticipated and

thus you may have to insert or reword questions for clarification. 5. If opposing counsel makes an objection, stop speaking and give them the floor. 6. Be prepared to respond to an objection. Do so as articulately and confidently as

you possibly can. Do not ramble. Not all judges will expect you to respond, and, in fact, sometimes you will have to ask if the judge will allow you to do so.

7. If the judge rules against you on an objection, show no signs of dismay. Simply proceed with another question. The key is to maintain your poise.

8. If you are stumped on how to proceed, ask the judge if you may confer with your co-counsel. Make the conference brief. Use this conference technique only when absolutely essential. Judges may become frustrated if you hold up the trial too often. Remember: this conference counts as part of your time allotment.

9. Never ask a question to which you do not know the answer. 10. When you have finished your questioning, say, “No further questions, your

honor,” and take your seat in a confident manner. VIII. Be a great witness

1. Generally, all witnesses will be sworn at the beginning of the trial as one group. 2. When you are called, go to the witness stand. When the judge indicates that you

may take your seat, respond by saying, “Thank you.” 3. Seat yourself in the witness box in a professional manner. 4. Position yourself so that you can comfortably give your responses to the scoring

judges. 5. Speak loudly and clearly and in a manner best fitting the character you are

portraying. 6. Stay in character! 7. Do not allow any unnecessary movement or gestures to distract from your

testimony. 8. When an objection is made, immediately stop talking. 9. Wait until the objection is decided and even then do not respond until the

attorney doing the questioning indicates that you should do so. 10. Do not attempt to answer a question that you do not understand. Ask for

clarification to be sure that you understand the question that is being asked.

50

11. Never argue with the judge or the opposing counsel. Keep a cool head! 12. Do not leave the witness box until the judge directs you to “step down.” 13. Walk slowly and confidently back to your seat. 14. Do not speak to anyone along the way or when you are seated.

IX. Maintain your demeanor during recess and debriefing

1. Rise when the judges leave the courtroom; maintain order and quiet while they are out; rise when the judges re-enter the courtroom.

2. Listen quietly and respectfully during the debriefing. When all the judges have concluded their comments, feel free to applaud, not only for them, but also for your opponents and yourselves.

X. Demonstrate fair play and integrity: Walk over to the other team members. Shake hands and

introduce yourself. It is always appropriate to congratulate them on a particularly good aspect of their performance. Remember, being a good sport is part of being a good winner. Not everyone can win the competition, so learn as much as you can and have fun while participating in the project.

51

CLEVELAND MUNICIPAL COURT CLEVELAND METROPOLITAN BAR ASSOCIATION

MOCK TRIAL COMPETITION

TEAM ENTRY FORM It is necessary that we timely receive this form, one for each team you are entering, so that we will know how many judges and courtrooms will be needed for the competition and so that we may prepare the Certificates of Participation for the students. Please provide the names of any student who may be participating whether or not their participation has been confirmed. Due April 26, 2019 Send to: Lavora “Gayle” Gadison

East Professional Center 1349 East 79th St. Cleveland, Ohio 44103

Lavora.Gadison@clevelandmetroschools.org School: Teacher: Team No. Names of students: (Please print legibly or attach a typed list, making sure to identify school and team on the top of the list):

52

CLEVELAND MUNICIPAL COURT CLEVELAND METROPOLITAN BAR ASSOCIATION

MOCK TRIAL COMPETITION SUBPOENA IN THE CASE OF: CITY OF ERIELAND -v- SHAWN EVANS To: Judge Lauren C. Moore Cleveland Municipal Court Courtroom 15-A Cleveland, OH 44101-4984 Tel.: (216) 664-4973 Fax: (216) 664-6735 You are commanded to have to appear before the (name of school) ____________________ mock trial team a (prosecutor, defense attorney, police

officer, victim advocate, social worker, probation officer, etc.) __________________ on (date) ____________, at (time) ____ in Room ______ to answer questions and present information to our mock trial team to assist us in our preparation of the case. (Contact person) ____________________ should be contacted at (contact number) _______________ upon receipt of this subpoena to confirm attendance and make arrangements. By: _________________

53

THE WRITING COMPETITION Most judges will agree that writing effectively is perhaps the most important lawyering skill there is. While courtroom skills are essential, judges rely extensively on briefs and memoranda submitted by lawyers on behalf of their clients. It is through briefs and memoranda that legal issues are framed and argued. Judges frequently decide many cases, particularly in civil matters, solely on the briefs filed. Because the court believes that writing skills are at least as important as other lawyering skills promoted in the Cleveland Mock Trial Competition, this writing portion continues to be an important, and independent, component of the competition. Once again, the writing competition this year is a solo competition and individual awards will be given. Although students are not required to participate, the court strongly encourages all students to participate. At a minimum, by writing on these issues, students will be better prepared to argue their respective positions at trial. Papers should be between four and ten pages in length. Please be conscientious about grammar, spelling, and neatness, as well as substantive content. See the following page for a sample scoring rubric. This year, students may write a persuasive essay based on any of the topics outlined on pp. 26-28 of their case materials. Essays will be judged according to the Analytic Scoring Rubric on p. 54. The essays are due on Friday, May 3, 2019, and must be clearly marked with students’ names, teachers, and schools. The essays may be mailed, faxed, or emailed to:

Jessica Paine, Director of Community Programs Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association 1375 East Ninth Street, Floor 2 Cleveland, OH 44114 Email: jpaine@clemetrobar.org Fax: (216) 696-2413 Phone: (216) 696-3525, ext. 4462

54