New Minjok 2012 Summer

Earl Blaney Wade Humphrey
*Refer to law journal week 1
Defence Characters:
The Accused/Witness 1 : Mrs. Amanda Johnson. Mrs. Johnson has been accused of theft under section 322 of the Criminal Code. She was arrested and charged at Blockbuster Video with 8 DVDs in her possession. She will plead innocent to the charges. She claims that she did NOT intend to steal anything. She claims that she was distracted by a serious problem at home when she left the store.
Witness 2: (Babysitter) Debbie Choi. Ms. Choi is a young teenager who has been working for the accused for several years caring for her son. She knows her fairly well and is mainly a character witness. She was working in Mrs. Johnsons house the day the emergency happened.
Witness 3: (Son) Donny Johnson Donny is a 13 year old boy. He is sometimes mischievous in school and a below average student. His teachers say he is smart, and might just have emotional problems. His father died when he was young and he lives alone with his Mom. He loves his Mom very much.
Crown Characters:
Witness 1: (Video Store Clerk) Bruce Smith. Bruce Smith has been an employee at Yourtown Blockbuster video for about one month. Bruce was the only employee working at the store the day that Mrs. Johnson was arrested. Bruce ran outside to catch Mrs. Johnson after he heard the alarm. He is also the one who called the police. He says he had a copy of the event on CCTV video recorded tape, but accidentally erased the copy after he showed it to police.
Witness 2: (Police officer) Mr. Mike Jeremy Officer Jeremy has been a Police Officer for two years and recently has transferred to the Yourtown area. Officer Jeremy responded to the emergency call at Yourtown Blockbuster video. He also claims to have seen a video of the crime caught on CCTV camera.
Witness Fact Sheets

Students MUST give answers that are consistent with the information here. Failure to follow these character guidelines will result in large points DEDUCTIONS by judges. If students are asked questions that are not connected to this paper they may create their own response...the response should be consistent with the character and any statement forms..
The Accused: Mrs. Johnson Mrs. Johnson is a widow who is 40 years old, her husband died in an accident about 5 years ago. Mrs. Johnson is a high school teacher working for Yourtown Public H.S. Mrs. Johnson has no previous criminal record. Mrs. Johnson is single. Mrs. Johnson claims she had absolutely NO intention of stealing anything that day at Blockbuster Video. Mrs. Johnson is well liked by most people in the Yourtown community. She is from a middle class family who lives far away, but she moved to Yourtown because of her late husbands job. After her husband passed away she decided to stay in Yourtown because her young son Donny had many friends here. A few years ago, she was happy to have found a job at a local high school. She is quite busy most days because of her job. She often hires a baby sister to take care of her son after schoolbecause sometimes she is late arriving home because of meetings and other work duties. She cares about her son very much and even though the family has hard some very bad times she is VERY determined to make her son happy. She often is very worried about her son because he has some emotional problems that are probably connected to his fathers sudden death.
Police Statement Form:
May 01, 2011 Interviewee :Mrs. Amanda Johnson Interviewer: Officer Mike Jeremy
Location: Yourtown Police Station
The following is a summary of what Mrs. J had to say after her arrest at the Yourtown police station on May 01, 2011. Mrs. Johnson claims to have been at the video store to rent videos for her sons birthday party which was later that day. She claims that while arriving at the store she realized she may not have shut off her oven in which she was baking her sons cake. She claims that she was waiting in line a long time, and continued more and more to worry about the situation. She claims to have received several hang up phone calls on her cell phone from her home lines number, all of which were disconnected for one reason or another (unknown?). Mrs. Johnson claims to have gotten a final phone call a few moments later, and heard what she thought was her son screaming. She said she panicked and immediately ran out of the store. She claims to have forgotten to be holding the videos. Further Note No fires were reported in Yourtown this evening. I called her house to investigate the safety of everyone, however everyone was fine, and there was no fire reported. Report written by -Officer Jeremy 7:00pm. May 01, 2011
Witness Fact Sheets

Crown Witness #1: Bruce Smith Bruce Smith is a young man. Bruce Smith did not finish high school, but started working instead to earn money. Bruce Smith has had several jobs, but his job at Block Buster Video is new to him. He has worked there for about one month. Bruce Smith is expected to testify that he does not believe Mrs. Johnsons story. Bruce agrees that it was a little busy that Saturday afternoon in the store. Usually two people are on duty but not that day because his manager was sick. He claims to have noticed the lady while she was standing in line because she kept looking at him, and seemed very nervous. He had a funny feeling about her. The phone kept ringing, and he ignored it to take care of customers in the store, but when he finally answered it, that is exactly when the lady ran out of the store. Bruce ran to catch her because he was worried what his manager would do if he knew Bruce let a thief get away. In fact that is the reason he was fired from his last job. When Bruce ran after the lady he caught her quickly as she tried to get into her car. She apologized to him and broke down in tears. She begged him to let her go, making up some excuse about an emergency. He refused, brought her back to the store, took back the DVDs and called the police.
May 01, 2011 Interviewee: Bruce Smith Location: Yourtown Block Buster Video Store Interviewer: Officer Mike Jeremy The following is a summary of what Bruce Smith said after being questioned by Police in regards to an incident that occurred at his work place (Block Buster Video) on the afternoon of May 01, 2011. Mr. Smith said that he noticed the accused acting strangely and began to keep a watch on her. According to his words she was acting very strange and nervous, as if she was planning something strange. He became suspicious of her as she stood in line waiting to be served. Mr. Smith said when he reached down to pick up the store phone Mrs. Johnson ran out of the store, he noticed her run and began to chase her as the alarms sounded. Mr. Smith said that he caught her in the parking lot and she immediately began begging him to let her go, and apologized for stealing the videos. He forced her back into the store and called the police. When I arrived he showed me a video of the incident. Mr. Smith said many customers also witnessed the incident, unfortunately none of them wanted to stick around and wait for the police.
Report written by -Officer Jeremy 3:15pm. May 01, 2011
Witness Fact Sheets

Defence Witness #2: Officer Jeremy Officer Jeremy has been a police officer for two years. Officer Jeremy has just transferred to Yourtown after working in a very large city, he is just getting to know the people here. Officer Jeremy was the policeman who responded to the crime in progress call at Block Buster Video. When he arrived at the video store Bruce Smith had detained Mrs. Johnson in a small office and the store was closed because of the emergency. When Officer Jeremy got to Block Buster he watched a CCTV tape shown to him by Bruce Smith of the incident. After watching this tape he decided to arrest Mrs. Johnson. When Officer Jeremy phoned the Johnson house to try and confirm Mrs. Johnsons story about an emergency situation in the home, he found no evidence what she was saying was true. Officer Jeremy is expected to testify that he does not believe Mrs. Johnson and that her denials are typical of a first time criminal who is embarrassed by her action.
Witness Fact Sheets

Defence Witness #1: Debbie Choi Debbie Choi is a high school student at Yourtown Public H.S. . Debbie has worked for Mrs. Johnson for a few years (off and on) Debbie Johnson has a good relationship with Donny, and disagrees with people who say he is bad. She thinks that they just dont understand him well. She feels sorry for him because of his family situation (loss of father). Debbie has also been the student of Mrs. Johnson. Debbie Choi is expected to try and protect both Donny and Mrs. Johnson while on the stand. Debbie (a high school student) first started working for Mrs. Johnson while she was in her class. She didnt really like babysitting, but she DID really like Mrs. Johnson so she agreed to help her. She really felt sorry for Mrs. Johnson and her son because of Mr. Johnsons accident. Overtime she began to build a very strong relationship with Donny (the son), and she was one of the only people who he really felt comfortable with and was usually well behaved when he was with her. She also felt a little like a mother to Donny, because often his mother was too busy at work to spend time with him etc Although she wants to keep a good relationship with both Mrs. Johnson and Donny she doesnt really want to babysit anymore because she has been offered a part time job at a restaurant, which pays a lot more money which she really needs to save for college next year.
May 01, 2011 Interviewee: Debbie Choi Donny Johnson Interviewer: Officer Mike Jeremy
Location: Yourtown Police Station (re: Phone Call) to the Johnson Residence (XXX-010-242-8917)
The following is a summary of the information received after calling the Johnson family home check on the safety of persons present there on the afternoon of May 01, 2011 at the insistence of Mrs. Johnson. Debbie Choi (a babysitter) answered the phone. First call: No Answer. Second Call: She claims NOT to have noticed any phone calls to Mrs. Johnson or from Mrs. Johnson. She was in the process of preparing dinner and receiving guests when I called. She called the young boy Donny to the phone to confirm. I asked Donny if there was any problem at the house? Donny claimed there wasnt and also claimed he didnt call his mom. I then informed the babysitter of the detention of Mrs. Johnson.
Report written by -Officer Jeremy 3:45pm. May 01, 2011
10
Witness Fact Sheets

Crown Witness #3: Donny Johnson Donny Johnson is a middle school student at Yourtown Public Middle School. . Donny has been sad and emotional since his father passed away about 5 years ago. He has often had behavior problems and has been suspended from school several times because of this. Donny loves his mother very much, but is often further upset because she is not home a lot. Donny is expected to be nervous or worried about admitting total fault, but also to protect his mother. Donny was at home on the day the problem occurred. He does often call his mother, especially when she leaves the house and he is lonely. When the police called him that day, he claimed not to have called his Mom (later he said this was because he was scared he would get into trouble). He know says that he did call his Mom that day. But he didnt mean to cause any trouble. Donny has a very good relationship with his babysitter Debbie Choi.
11
GLPS Mock Trial
TOURNAMENT CASE
*Refer to law journal week 2 and law lectures
12
DefenceCharacters:
The Accused: Mrs. Ivy Mrs. Johnson has been accused of assault under sections 25(a) and 267(a) of the Criminal Code. She will plead innocent to the charges. She claims that she has the legal right to discipline her child and that the police have no authority to interfere.
Witness 2: (Favorite Child) Precious is a twelve year old twin. She is the captain of the debate team, the student president of her school, a gifted artist and piano player, and an A+ student. She is expected to testify that her mother is a great mother, and that her brother is too blame for the problem because of his bad attitude. She believes her brother is exaggerating the situation..
13
CrownCharacters:
Witness 1: Paul Poison Ivy. Paul, who prefers to be called Poison is a twelve year old twin. He has had a troubled childhood, especially after his father passed away. He refuses to study, lacks motivation, and generally is NOT interested in much of anything other than listening to music and playing computer games. After the alleged assault incident Paul has been living in foster care, and he doesnt want to go home.
Witness 2: (Social Worker) Mr. B. Well Mr. Brad Well is a social worker working for Yourtown community services. His job is to respond to allegations of Child abuse by investigating the situation. After investigating the situation at the Ivy home Mr. B Well recommended that Paul be removed from the home and that charges be filed for assault against the boys mother.
14
WitnessFactSheets
The Accused: Mrs. Ivy Ms. Johnson is a widow who is in her late 40s. Her husband died while fighting in the Iraq war about 8 years ago. Ms. Johnson is a stay at home mom. She has no problem with expenses because of her husbands insurance plan and the military pension she receives (because her husband died while on duty). Ms. Johnson has no previous criminal record. Mrs. Johnson claims it is her right to spank her children. She also claims that it is NOT her intention to harm them. She has admitted that she has had a very hard time with one of her children (Paul) since her husbands death. Her husband believed strongly in corporal punishment and that the kids feared him and therefore respected him. She thinks that this is the best method, although she has tried disciplining her children in other ways, nothing other methods dont work for Paul. He simply is lazy in her opinion. When she consulted with her pastor about the trouble she was having with Paul the advice she received in her church was to spare the rod is to spoil the child. She thus has decided to spank Paul as frequently as she feels he needs it, which is a lot (certainly at least once a week, sometimes more). She is ashamed of Paul as he is so far behind his twin sister precious, who she rarely has to spank. She was embarrassed by Paul causing this situation to happen, but wants him back home so that she can straighten him out. She is sure that his development will only be further hurt by foster care.
15
October 2011 Interviewee: Station Interviewer: Jeremy
01, Mrs. Ivy Officer Location: Yourtown Police Mike
The following is a summary of my findings after being called to the IVY residence after a report was filed of suspected child abuse by Mr. Brown the principal of Yourtown private middle school. After interviewing Ms. Ivy it is clear that she is very stressed out about the development and work ethic of her son Paul. Paul displays a bad attitude and lack of effort. I noticed his bad attitude also while interviewing him. He seems to have a very limited respect for authority. I noticed NO severe injuries to the child, other than a few bruises on his arm, which could have been from anything. My only concern is that the boy claims to have been beaten with a wooden spoon. The mother claims to just use it to intimidate him. I cautioned her against physical discipline with an object other than her own hand. I find Ms Ivy has likely given a credible and reasonable explanation. It is my opinion that she cares a lot about her children and truly has their best interest at heart. As is standard police department policy I will now turn this matter over to child protective services so that they may begin their own investigation if they choose to.
16
Sept 22, 2011 Subject of Report: Paul Ivy (12 years old) This report is being submitted to the Yourtown Police department as is required by school board policy. A student by the name of Paul Ivy has been noticed to have come to school several times over the past year with injuries to his arms and legs that could possibly resemble injuries suffered from physical abuse in the home. Today rather serious bruises were noticed by the childs teacher and he has been sent to my office to talk to about it. He claims to have been beaten by his mother with a wooden spoon,
and spanked. He claims it is very uncomfortable to move his arms or sit on his buttocks. The childs emotional and behavioral mannerisms are also cause for concern. Overall mentally, his current teacher (Mrs. Thomas) and his former teacher (Mrs. Lynn) both describe the student as sad, troublesome and disconnected.
I have personally called the boys mother Ms. Ivy who has answered all of my questions very reasonably. She however admits to having serious difficulties raising her son, and has admitted to using frequent spankings to try and change his behavior. She claims her son is exaggerating his injuries to get attention and miss more classes. It is not our position here at Yourtown Middle to speculate whether or whether not abuse is occurring in the IVY home. It is just necessary for us to report a situation of frequent injuries to our child to authorities. This letter is intended to do so. Yours Truly, Mr. John Brown Principal of Yourtown Middle School.
17
WitnessFactSheets
Defence Witness #2: Precious Ivy is a 12 year old twin and the biological sister of Paul. She is very frustrated and disappointed with her brother Paul. She believes her mother is doing nothing wrong and that Paul deserves what he gets. She doesnt like to be spanked but she thinks when she gets spanked she deserves it. Precious agrees that their mother pushes them very hard to succeed in life. She agrees that their mother pushes them harder than other mothers and that sometimes her mothers expectations are very high, maybe too high. She has been stressed out by her mothers high expectations and it has had bad effects on her social life, for example she usually cant play with her friends very much because she has to study extra hours and take special classes. Precious however is very proud of her achievements in both school, and extracurricular activities, she is one of the best at everything she does. She credits her mother for this success and is glad to have learned how to work hard because of her mothers constant pressure. She thinks her brother is lazy and is sure he will have a bad future if he doesnt start to work harder. She thinks if she can be successful so can he. They are twins after all. She doesnt like to hear it when her brother is getting spanked by her mom so she always goes to her room and puts earphones in because she cant stand to hear the screaming and crying. It disrupts her important studying and that makes her angry so she tries to just ignore the situation. She just wishes they could be a normal family.
18
WitnessFactSheets
Crown Witness #1: Officer Jeremy Paul claims his mother is the worst part of his life. Paul claims his mothers expectations are TOTALLY unreasonable and that she thinks of him as a robot and not a kid. She is stopping him from having a normal life. Paul claims also that his mother has already ruined his sisters life and that it ISNT going to happen to him. Paul claims that he tried to live up to his mothers expectations, but then realized that his mother only really was forcing her kids to do so much extra studying and extracurricular activities so that she could brag to her friends about it. Paul thinks his mom should find other ways to be proud of herself like by getting her own job or hobbies, and she should stop using her kids as her trophies. Paul has had enough and refuses to be used like this anymore. Paul claims his mothers beatings have gotten more frequent over the past few months, and that she has totally lost control. She is really starting to hurt him while she hits him, because she is hitting him when she is VERY angry. Paul thinks she is always very angry. His feelings of being scared and sad at home have had a very bad effect on his social skills and mental well being. He just is sad all the time, and he has stopped trying to do well at anything. Paul thinks he is NOT lazy, he just wants the life of a normal child, he has no interest in going
to Harvard or playing in the symphony orchestra like his sister has been brainwashed into.Paul is very happy to be in foster home and away from his home, the people at foster care centre dont make him do anything he doesnt want to do. Sometimes he does miss his sister though and especially his dog.
19
A= Excellent, B= Good, C= Satisfactory, D=Needs Improvement, F= Fail
STUDENT: PAUL IVY (12 years old)

TEACHER: Mrs. Thomas (final Grade 7 report)
School Absences: 09 Subject: BMath
Comments: Paul has improved in Math this fall. However he still is not doing his homework regularly. His test scores however, are about average. Subject: English C Paul did not submit his book report as he should have. His test scores are about average. His class notebook is well organized and complete. Subject: GYM D Paul often does not participate well in class. He claims that his body doesnt feel well enough. Subject: SCIENCE C+ Paul is paying good attention in class. He has completed most of his laboratory assignments. Subject: French DPaul continues to show lack Subject: History C Paul d id nt hand in his final a lot. of interest in French class. essay and that hurt his final grade
20
WitnessFactSheets
Crown Witness #2: Mr. B Well Mr. B Well is an expert in child psychology and has studied a lot about the effects of corporal punishment on children. Mr. B. Well is convinced that corporal punishment is having a bad effect on Paul and that Paul is better off removed from the care of Ms. Ivy. Mr. B. Well has worked for the Yourtown child service centre for almost 15 years. It is Mr. B Wells job according to child welfare laws in Yourprovince to investigate matters that have been reported by police or child care centers (such as schools or other) to his agency. His investigations should be as objective as possible, he then should make a report and file it with police who will use his agencies recommendations to take action, or no action. Part of Mr. B. Wells job is also to educate parents about the dangers of using corporal punishment. He has written a book about using alternative punishment which is called Hitting Hurts and was published in 2009. Mr. B Well also wrote a report to the Federal government about proposed changes to the criminal code which favored the removal of section 43. Mr. B Wells recommendations are based on a 100 point scoring system that has been developed for use. 40-30 points results in possible removal and mandatory follow up visits. Under 30 points usually results in a recommendation of action to police.
21
Report Subjects: Ms. Ivy,

th
Paul
Ivy and
household. October 15 , 2011 Report by. Mr. B. Well.
1.Understanding of Good
Parenting Techniques (0-10) basis (0-10)
3 2 8 5 4 2 0 3 0 2 28
2.Ability to Control Children on a daily 3.Condition of home upon
visit (order) (0-10)
4.Financial stability in home (0-10) 5.Emotional stability of children in home. (0-10) 6. Concern or Support raised by others in contact (0-10) 7. Affected childs opinion. (0-10) 8. Mothers response to investigation (0-10) 9. Supporting parents influence (0-10) 10. Adherence to Community standards (0-10) Total:
The checklist score i s well below what is acceptable, and the 12year old boys arms, and due to his desire
due to noticeable bruises on
to be removed from the home Paul from the Ivy home
it is recommended that police immediately remove the boy and
place him in foster care for an indeterminate period of time.
Due also to the seriousness of the boys allegations it is also recommended that police file charges against the mother Ms. Ivy at once. It is clear that the section 43 defense. The
seriousness and frequency of use of an
the abuse falls outside a
object for beatings has also been reported by the victim.
22
POINT
SYSTEM
USERERS
MANUAL.
Scoring should reflect the criteria as explained here, from a well rounded viewpoint. 1. Understanding of Good Parenting Techniques (0-10)
This category reflects the parents overall understanding of different parenting techniques and their willingness to try them to provide effective solutions.
2.
Ability to Control Children on a daily
basis (0-10)
a
This category reflects the parents ability to maintain order in the household on routine basis in a manner that imposes low stress and risk to the children.
3.
Condition of home upon
visit (order) (0-10)

orderliness.
This category reflects the homes cleanliness and
4.
Financial stability in home (0-10)

economic disadvantages that might be a source of stress
This category reflects any
5.
Emotional stability of children in home. (0-10)
This category measures the childs emotional well being.
6.
Concern or Support raised by others in contact (0-10)
This category measures the concerns raised by those in close contact with the children
7.
Affected childs opinion. (0-10)

responds to the childs point of view regarding his parents
This category suitability.
8.
Parents response to investigation (0-10)
This category measures whether or not the parents are able to appreciate the concern of the agency and work towards lessening concern.
9.
Supporting parents influence (0-10)

the other parent or guardians ability to intervene in a
This category measures positive manner.
Adherence to Community standards (0-10)

This category measures whether or not the parents have adopted their parenting techniques to those accepted by the community as reasonable.
*Refer to law lecture
24
Defence Characters:
The Accused/ Witness 1 The Great Kamala. Kamala is the son of the chief of the proud Toto tribe. He is destined to become King of his people someday, but first wants to improve his education. He is an African exchange student. He was awarded a scholarship for studies in a Canadian university. He was on his way to his university when the plane crashed in the arctic. He has been accused of first degree murder for planning the murder and committing the murder of the injured pilot who was eventually eaten. He claims that he is not guilty of planning the murder of the pilot, that the killing was done out of necessity and that the pilot was killed mercifully to end his suffering.
Witness 2: Ho Lee Chow Ho lee Chow was one of the passengers on the plane. He operates a zoo and a circus in China. He was in favor of killing the pilot, and also participated in eating the dead body. He maintains that it was a necessary evil, and believes that Kamala did nothing wrong. He also has knowledge of different animal species and has insisted that the animals in the area posed a great risk to the survivors of the plane crash.
25
Crown Characters:
Witness 1: Sister Mary Goodwell. Sister Mary has been a Catholic Nun for the past 30 years. She has lived in a convent since the age of 14 and has a religious education. She believes in living her life through principles taught in the bible. She was a plane crash survivor and believes it WAS NOT necessary to kill the pilot, who she had been taking care of after his injuries. She did NOT knowingly eat any of the body, but found out later she was fed some in a soup secretly. She was suspicious of the other survivors intentions during the period after the crash so she watched over the pilot and tried to nurse him back to health, while comforting him with religious prayer.
Witness 2: (Survival Specialist) Mr. Mick crocodile Dundee (survival book) Crocodile Dundee is a survival expert from Canada. He is familiar with survival techniques and has some knowledge of the local area where the plane crashed. He believes there were many alternative measures available to the plane crash victims that could have sustained them. He also believes that the pilot could have survived and that there was a limited risk from the animals in the area.
26
Witness Fact Sheets

The Accused: The Great Kamala

The Great Kamala is a United Nations scholarship student, who was planning to study at the University of Toronto (science). He is the son of the Chief of the Toto tribe. Great Kamala (and the Toto tribe) originate from a remote part of the Congo in Africa where cannibalism is sometimes practiced for religious ritual, punishment, or necessity (although it is a cultural practice that has almost died out). Great Kamala did not have knowledge of Canadian laws, and has never been to Canada before. Great Kamala is not accustomed to Canadian climate or culture. The Great Kamala was on a very long plane flight from Africa and had very little money, because he is from a poor African village. Great Kamala was selected to be a scholarship student (science) at the University of Toronto through a special UN outreach program that helps disadvantaged teenagers. He was to arrive at the school in Toronto and then be given an orientation session about Canadian culture, history, and an overview of the science program he was to enroll in. After about 18 hours in the air the plane he was riding broke into pieces in a heavy wind storm, most of the plane fell into the ocean and sank and the remaining part (the front part he was on) slammed into an icy island in the Canadian Arctic. The pilot was seriously injured in the crash, couldnt walk and was in and out of consciousness for most of the time before he was killed. Great Kamala admits to killing the pilot, and eating parts of him in a soup of melted ice and moss. He says that he had no plan to kill him, but was asked to do so by the pilot suddenly one day - as the pilot was attempting suicide. Great Kamala admits he was very worried that the pilots wounds were attracting the attention of large wild animals, and that the Chinese passenger had suggested killing and eating the pilot before. Great Kamala CANNOT believe that the Canadian police dont understand the situation and want to throw him in jail.
27
Witness Fact Sheets

Defence Witness 2: Ho Lee Chow Ho Lee Chow argued with the rest of the group that they should kill the pilot and eat him, but the group couldnt agree on what to do. Ho Lee Chow has a zoo and a circus in China. He has had some experience with many wild animals, including polar bears and claims that these animals can be VERY dangerous. Ho Lee Chow admitted to police that he favored killing the pilot because the pilots wounds were drawing the attention of wild animals in the area, and he was worried that they would attack the part of the plane where the group was camping. Ho Lee Chow was traveling to Toronto from China on the ill fated aircraft. He was going to the Toronto Zoo to purchase new animals for his circus in China. When the plane crashed Ho Lee Chow claims he tried his best with Kamala to locate food sources, and search the area for help or people but could find no hope or assistance. He claims he gave Kamala the idea of eating the pilot, and that Kamala didnt want to, but wasnt 100% against the idea. He also claims that the pilot was in a lot of pain and was certain to die from his injuries. Ho Lee Chow claims that the conditions after the plane crash were horrible, and that the survivors deaths were imminent, unless they got some nutrition. Ho Lee Chow does NOT like Sister Mary, because he thinks she was lazy and unhelpful during the crises situation. He is very thankful to Kamala for deciding to kill the pilot.
28
Witness Fact Sheets

Crown Witness #1 : Sister Mary Sister Mary was a Catholic Nun for over thirty years she continues to believe DEEPLY in the teachings of the bible. However after the incident and knowledge that she ate the flesh of another human, she has given up her position in the church and become deeply depressed. She was on the ill-fated flight because she was going to attend a bible seminar in Toronto sponsored by the Vatican. The special guest speaker was going to be the Pope. She is deeply religious and has aimed to live her life free from sin. She feels she was successful until she ate part of the pilot in the soup. She thinks she has always had a very special relationship with God, but now that relationship is broken and she worries she wont be forgiven. She was the only person to stay with the pilot (in the cockpit) during the day and she tried to nurse him back to health. She also prayed for him most of the time very deeply asking God to save him. She claims to have had very clear (multiple) visions at different times during the emergency which she believed an angel told her that rescue help was on the way.and not to fear. She claims to have seen multiple search aircrafts flying overhead and to have lighten a flare in the early evening as one was circling the camp area. She claims that the pilot, although initially wishing for death, had been converted to a hopeful mindset because of her bible teachings, and reports of the search planes.
She insists that Kamala and Ho Lee Chow had a well developed plan
to trick her and kill the pilot. She claims one day the two men told her a story about icebergs forming a cross and that they too saw an angel which called for sister Mary to be brought to that place. When she left and went there being led by Ho Lee Chow, Kamala snuck into the pilots cockpit killed him and made the soup. When the other two returned he fed the soup to her, claiming that it contained meat from a bird.
29
Witness Fact Sheets

Crown Witness 2: Mick Dundee Crocodile Dundee is a survival expert who has written a series of popular books called Anymans Common Sense Survival. The books are about how easy it is to survive in extreme conditions using basic common sense. Dundee is familiar with the area and conditions where the plane crashed. On his holidays he often goes there on ice fishing and whale watching tours. Dundee is familiar with the hunting patterns and social behaviors of Canadas Inuit people. Dundee returned to the area of the plane crash with the police investigators to assist them in recovering evidence and mapping the area. He has drawn a map of the area, with the assistance of police helicopter. Dundee is certain that the plane crash survivors would have been able to survive on resources in the area. In addition to the rations that the pilot and other passengers had in their carry-on bags, there was an abundance of fish, polar bears, reindeer, wild moss and tree bark as well as roots that could have been used to sustain themselves until help arrived. Dundees expertise includes dealing with human wounds. He believes that the broken legs the pilot suffered were not cared for properly, but were certainly NOT life threatening. Dundee has also traveled to Africa (in the Congo area) and has spent time with the Toto tribe. He has witnessed their cannibalism practices and believes that Kamala probably saw eating the pilot as a first option rather than a last resort. He claims the Toto tribe is one of the last tribes in the Congo region to routinely practice cannibalism. He claims to have witnessed them do so on a number of occasions during his two week expedition in the Congo.
30
Witness Fact Sheets

The Deceased: Captain Saul Pepper Captain Saul Pepper is a married man with two children. He was in his early 60s and in good health before the accident according to his medical records. Captain Saul Pepper had never been in an accident before, but had never flown this cross-arctic route before. When he realized the plane was breaking apart he sent an SOS distress signal to the air traffic controllers in Toronto his intended destination, however due to the severe storm he could not give his exact location, but gave only an estimated position. A voice recording of this call was made and is available. After the plane crashed the Captain kept a diary which was found by police. It seems the captain also had a hidden bag of emergency food which he was keeping under his pilots chair. Before taking the job as a passenger pilot for Canada Airways, Captain Saul Pepper made a living as a mercenary pilot. He fought as a paid private fighter pilot, aerial reconnaissance assistance, and special forces drops (for the CIA) in many local wars which included the 1998-: Congo/Zaire war, the Afghanistan war , the Chinese invasion of Tibet, and the US conflict in Somalia (2006-2009). Captain Saul Pepper did receive basic survival training (a two day seminar) which is mandatory for all pilots who fly for Canadian Airways.
31
Published in Any mans Survival Maps 2011
1. 3. 5. 7.
Probable location of detached main cabin 2. Cockpit Cave (survival camp area) 4. Salt Water Lake Inuit Village 6. Sparse Vegetation Radar and Arctic Patrol/Rescue Station
32
The following diary was recovered at the scene by police investigators On October 31st 2011.
October 15th The pain is SO BAD!!!!!today and its so cold. I can hardly write. The plane crashed yesterday. There are 4 known survivors including me. I cant move , Im sure both legs are broken. I stay in the cockpit under blankets , while the others have found a cave nearby to sleep in and shelter from the COLD. GOD HELP US. Oct 17th Colder! This IS HELL. Two of the survivors came to my cockpit looking for food. But didnt find. Must eat now! I need strength to recover. October 18th My legs wont stop bleeding and they are dripping with infected puss. It smells bad and it burns. I need to eat. The others wont last long in these conditions, especially the African boy. I tried to tell them how to ice fish today, but the African and the Chinese instead ignore my teaching and ask me about hunting polar bear. Stupid boy. I dont like him or the Chinese. October 19th Finally my memory about the crash is improving ..or coming back. Sister Mary has been nursing me She keeps talking about God and I dont like it, but at least she is helping me. I need help. I remember that I called in an SOS before we crashed, but I didnt have the exact coordinates. I tried my best to estimate. I hope that the message got through. I know that there are Inuit tribes in the area, our only hope may be for them to find us when they are out on a hunting expedition. Sept. October 20th Awake from the infection and pain most nights. I cant help but scream with pain. The others come in to look at me while they think I sleep. Last night I awoke with the African boy smelling me. He scares me. He isnt normal, I have a bad feeling about him. Sept Cot 21 Marys talk of angels is crazy. She is making me feel crazy with her prayers, I have given up hope. She claims she saw a plane today, and signaled it but I think she was just trying to give me false hope. At night I hear noises, they might be the bears or the African boy I dont know which is worse. October 22 I wont eat the moss they try and feed me. It gets stuck in my throat, and I cant swallow well. The infection has spread in my body and I cant sleep well. No one is here this morning, Mary is gone talking about icebergs and angels she went with the Chinese man. I am alone and sad and miserable so much pain. I miss my family.
33
34
35
36
37
R V The Great Kamala deals with the following legal issues.... Major Issues: the Defence of necessity Premeditation (murder) Minor Issues: mercy killing ignorance of the law racism and cultural bias in investigations. Applicable sections of the Criminal Code are s.222 and 229
38
39
Plaintiff Characters:
Witness 1: Mr. Kim Mr. Kim is 45 years old and a recent Canadian immigrant from South Korea. While in Korea he served as a police officer for 10 years and was promoted to the level of captain. Although he speaks with a heavy accent, his English test scores are fairly high. He is very proud of his Korean heritage and insists that he is either allowed to have time off during Chuseok and Sollal or be allowed to wear traditional Korean clothes (hanbok) during those days. Although he is smaller than most Canadians, he feels that he is able to physically able to do the job of a police officer. When he applied for the job at the Toronto Police office he felt his application was rejected due to discrimination. Mr. Kim is a confucianist and is very proud of his Korean traditional heritage. Witness 2: Mrs. Bee Well Mrs. Bee Well has been working for the Ontario Human Rights Commission as a policy advisor for over five years. Before this she worked for a charity organization called Immigrants First, a government lobby group, looking to create favorable government policy and assistance to ethnic minority immigrant groups in Canada. Mrs. Bee Well agrees that the Toronto police action was discriminatory. She has sent a letter to the Toronto police urging them to develop a more flexible hiring policy. She is a university educated expert in the area of human rights.
40
Crown Characters:
Witness 1: Captain David Jeremy. Captain Jeremy has recently transferred from Yourtown to the Toronto area. He is the Captain of the Toronto Police Station and is responsible for the hiring of new officers. Officer Jeremy made the decision to reject Mr. Kims employment application and believes all three rejection reasons were valid. He understands the concerns of the Human Rights Commission but claims that the reasons are not discriminatory but a matter of public safety and that the refusal to hire Mr. Kim is in the best interest of the public.
Witness 2: Mr. Calvin Canuk Mr. Canuk is a risk analyst and a lawyer representing the Police Union. He argues that Mr. Kims language abilities, and his size would have a negative impact on his ability to protect Canadian citizens. He also argues that Mr. Kims strong attachment to traditional Korean culture might have an unfair impact on his treatment of Canadians with very liberal habits. He does not think Mr. Kim should be allowed to join the police force.
41
Witness Fact Sheets

The Plaintiff: Mr. Kim Mr. Kim is 45 years old. He immigrated to Canada with his wife five years ago. He was accepted to Canada as a skilled worker under the category of (NOC CODE:6541) Security guards and related security service occupations. However he has been unable to find employment since his arrival. Mr. Kim received his full Canadian citizenship last year (2011). Mr. Kim was promoted to the Captain of Yeoju police Force after having served as a police officer for ten years in Kyunggi-do province. He has an excellent record of service. Mr. Kim is very proud of his Korean ancestry. He believes it is his duty not to cut his hair, and also to wear a hanbok especially during Seollal (Lunar new year) and Chuseok and links such beliefs to the traditional outlook that stems from Tangun. He believes it is his right to observe (follow) these customs. He is also has very conservative views and admits being against interracial marriage, homosexuality and has a very traditional view about the role of women in society. Mr. Kim was able to perform most but not all levels of the police strength test, unfortunately his weight and height did not meet minimum requirements. He argues that the strength tests and the height and weight restrictions are discriminatory. Mr. Kims language scores did pass immigration requirements for admission to Canada for the purposes of working as a Security Guard NOC CODE:6541. DOES SPEAK with a fairly heavy accent.
42
Witness Fact Sheets

Plaintiff Witness 2: Mrs. Bee Well Ontario Human Rights Commission policy advisor. This means she is responsible for making recommendations to employers to change workplace policies to guarantee adherence to the Ontario Human Rights Act. She investigates complaints and recommends solutions to the complaint (in accordance to OHRC policy). If the employer refuses to follow her recommendation complaint matter may be brought to the provincial courts to decide. She worked for a charity organization called Immigrants First, a government lobby group, looking to create favorable government policy and assistance to ethnic minority immigrant groups in Canada. While working with that organization she assisted Sikh Canadians in their successful legal efforts to be allowed to wear turbans and other religious symbols at schools and as part of their uniform for the national police (RCMP). She wrote a recent policy paper for the OHRC outlying the fact that height and weight restrictions may be disguised national origin discrimination (see evidence). She wrote a recent policy paper for the OHRC outlying the fact that discrimination due to accent may be disguised national origin discrimination (see evidence). She thinks many people fail to understand the needs of minorities in society. She believes that racism towards minority group continues to be a BIG problem in society. She believes minority groups are disadvantaged and need special assistance to overcome this problem.
43
Witness Fact Sheets

Respondent Witness 1: Captain Jeremy (Crown) Has recently transferred from Yourtown (a small rural area) to Toronto (the most ethnically diverse city in Canada). He has served as a police officer for over 12 years. He is responsible for the hiring of new officers. Officer Jeremy rejected Mr. Kims employment application after granting him an interview. According to his interview notes, he based his decision on three factors concern for public safety, concern for the best interest of the public, concern for Mr. Kims well being. Officer Jeremy refuses to admit that the Police hiring process is discriminatory, he rather insists it is practical. After a review of his hiring practices it has been revealed that about 75% of the new officers Captain Jeremy has hired were Caucasian. (Since he became Police Captain in Toronto in 2011). He has only hired two Asians out of 42 new hires since 2011.
44
Witness Fact Sheets

Respondent Witness 2: (Crown) Mr. Canuk is an insurance risk analyst and the head of the Police Union. He argues that Mr. Kims language abilities, and his size would have a negative impact on his ability to protect Canadian citizens. He is worried that Mr. Kims weaknesses would open the door for public lawsuits should something go wrong. He also argues that Mr. Kims strong attachment to traditional Korean culture might have an unfair impact on his treatment of Canadians with very liberal habits. He claims that this might also lead to lawsuits by the public for unfair/unequal treatment. Mr. Canuk argues that part 6 of the Ontario Police Code contains an oath that all officers promise to approach their job with an open mind and an outwardly objective demeanor he feels Mr. Kims internal character, and insistence of wearing a hanbok during certain times of the year, prevents him from fulfilling this pledge.
45
46
47
48
49
50
2012
July
25
WEEK 1 ARTICLES
The Making of a Criminal
EOP: The GLPS Criminal Code: Strict Liability
Earl Blaney [GLPS]

51
2012-07-25
We have all heard of criminals and know they are bad people. But what does being a criminal really mean? This short article will explain. A criminal is a person who has committed a crime. Ok, well that might seem obvious. But for a clearer understanding lets first discuss what is a crime. All countries have rules (without rules we have a system called anarchy) , which might sound wonderful but really isnt as much fun as you might think it would be. In a system of anarchy everyone goes through life taking and doing whatever they want, whenever they want to do it. The problem is that people have many different wants and needs which often conflict with each other. For example you might want to go to lunch right now because you are hungry, but I might want to teach you about anarchy, and the cafeteria cook might want to go on vacation. If you go to the cafeteria you will be happy and I will be angry (you will be angry later also when you discover the cafeteria ladies havent cooked lunch because they are in Hawaii). If I continue to teach you about anarchy you will be angry (hungry) but I will be happy. As you can see without rules things become very confusing, and if you are small or weak, very dangerous. Think about your bigger roommate. If there were no PAs and no Mr. Hwang to control students. What if you were really hungry and there was only one choco-pie left in a boxwho would get it? Your big scary roommate or you? You can see that we need rules to protect people and to organize things. In most countries laws are written down (these are called codified laws). There are many different kinds of codes in most countries. Tax codes (when should you pay taxes, how much tax should you pay) Family codes (who can get married , how to get divorced) Labor codes (how can employees be fired, how much money should employees make)Etc. One of the most important codes a country has are a set of rules that protect the order of society and the safety of others, this is usually called a criminal or penal code. A criminal code usually lists the things that people are NOT allowed to do. In Korea the code that does this is called the Korean Penal Code it was first published in 1956 and has been
52
changed (amended) several times since then. In Canada we have the Canadian Criminal Code (C.C.C.) the newest version was published in 1985 and it also has been changed (amended) many times since then. http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-c-46/latest/rsc-1985-c-c46.html The above link contains the Canadian Criminal Code which has about 850 sections (sections meaning rules or parts). Wow!!!! thats really a lot of rules to remember. Usually a countrys criminal code contains three main parts.. 1) Definitions of words 2) Laws/Rules 3) Punishments Lets look at the rule about stealing something (there are several rules, but this is the main one) Section 2 of Canadas Criminal Code (CCC) contains the definitions of words. Section 2 gives a simple definition of stealing: steal means to commit theft. Section 322 explains the rule about theft in Canada
322. (1) Every one commits theft who fraudulently and without colour of right takes, or fraudulently and without colour of right converts to his use or to the use of another person, anything, whether animate or inanimate, with intent (a) to deprive, temporarily or absolutely, the owner of it, or a person who has a special property or interest in it, of the thing or of his property or interest in it;
Section 334 explains punishments: S.334. Except where otherwise provided by law, everyone who commits theft (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, where the property stolen is a testamentary instrument or the value of what is stolen exceeds five thousand dollars; or
53
(b) is guilty (i) of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or (ii) of an offence punishable on summary conviction, where the value of what is stolen does not exceed five thousand dollars.
There are three kinds of criminal offences in Canada: 1) Summary Offences (less serious) unless otherwise stated, are punishable by a fine of no more than $5,000 and/or 6 months in jail. 2) Indictable Offences (more serious) often require longer jail time (usually longer than two years), you are also allowed to be heard by a jury if you choose. 3) Hybrid Offence (most crimes) allows the Crown prosecutor to decide if they want to proceed by way of summary or indictment. Think about our training case R v. Johnson. would Mrs. Johnsons crime (stealing videos) be considered a summary or indictable offence? What penalty do you think the crown prosecutors would be seeking?
So lets get back to our original question. What makes a criminal? There are three things that have to happen for a person to change from a normal person into a criminal person First: You need to break a rule in the Criminal Code by some action. This is called actus reus (a latin term that means guilty action) Second: You need to have mentally intended to commit the action (you must have intended
54
to do it, it cant have been an accident). This is called mens rae(a latin term that means guilty mind). Third: You have to be found guilty by a judge or Jury. And the judge or jury must have NO reasonable doubt that you did commit the crime. These are the three steps you have to take if you want to become a criminal. Failure to meet all of these requirements means you are NOT GUILTY!!!!! But beware!!!! A life of crime can be very lonely.
Pretty soon after you arrive at GLPS you will quickly realize the GLPS camp is a place with A LOT of rules. The GLPS Criminal Code is titled GLPS Regulations for Students and it can be found on pages 10-12 of your student information booklet you received when you arrived.
55
There are three pages of rules heresome of the rules include Not being late for class without permission or a legitimate reason. You should keep your rooms clean and make your beds. Dating with the other sex is prohibited. Whenever you meet teachers, PAs or administrative staff you should greet politely. EOP (English is the only language students can use on campus). Like the Canadian and Korean criminal codes the GLPS also lists punishments for breaking the code. For example, yellow cards, red cards, getting removed from camp, special training, and of course EOP papers. Well Im sure that the rule you will find most difficult to keep is the EOP rule, even the best students sometimes slip up and make a mistake on this one. As time goes on you will hear some students complain that they have been prosecuted by PAs unfairly. It might sound something like this.. But it wasnt me or I had to speak to my mom on the phone and she cant understand English, I had no choice or The PA was listening outside my door to my private conversation, how unfair and. weird or it was an emergency situation, I had to speak Korean or I didnt mean to, honest, I wont do it again After reading the first article in this weeks journal the Making of a Criminal you have learned that three elements are necessary to be guilty of something
56
1) actus reus (guilty action) 2) mens rae (guilty mind) 3) to be found guilty at trail BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT Well if it was an accident, and you really didnt mean to speak KOREAN it just came out, doesnt that mean you are not guilty (no mens rae)! Shouldnt the third requirement (being found guilty at trial beyond a reasonable doubt) guarantee you the right to a hearing to argue your case? No, Im sorry it doesnt. In law we also have code offences called strict liability offences. Strict liability offences do not require mens rae, nor is a hearing considered necessary to prove or disprove the charge. Strict liability crimes are usually non-serious crimes, that do not impose a lot of social embarrassment on the person being charged. They are simple obvious crimes so not a lot of evidence is necessary to prove them (no court case and witness testimony is needed). Because no hearing is given to the person charged with a strict liability offence, also the punishment is usually a light punishment not a strong punishment (then a hearing would be needed to fully protect the person). In strict liability situations like EOP someone of authority (a PA for example) simply claims there are 5o witnesses to the crime and then immediately punishes you for the crime. In the world outside GLPS strict liability offences are often used for traffic violations for example.. going through a red light, or going too fast in your car. In these situations the police just mail a ticket to your mail box and your father or mother MUST pay the fine. So dont waste your time arguing with PAs about the fairness of your EOP paperyou are wasting your breath. Simply memorize your EOP paper and remember in cases of strict liability the only important thing is actus reus. LIFE IS SO UNFAIR!!!!
57
2012
Aug
10
WEEK 2 ARTICLES
Does Common Law Make Common Sense?
Children Might NOT be Human!!!
Who Can Hit You?
58
Earl Blaney
Does Common Law Make Common Sense?

Written laws are easy to understand, they make sense! All you have to do is read the rule in the code and follow it. Easy, simple! But wait.What are you talking about? There are unwritten laws? That doesnt seem to make a lot of sense. How can there be unwritten laws? How can we know what the laws are if they arent written down? These laws are even stronger than written laws? That just seems to be bizarre. Well it is strange I suppose, but its a strange world. Welcome to the realm of common law, unwritten, invisible judge made law that is in fact more powerful than laws written and approved by your government. Lets take a look at how common law works through the following example. Lets imagine your school passed a law which said. Students MUST do their homework everyday. Seems very easy to understand, very clear and easy to follow. But I can promise you that sooner or later someone, somewhere will have a problem understanding it. For example student Kim Seo Yoon comes to her teachers class during 8:30 am advisor time. Are you done your homework? Mr. Blaney Sir asks. Not yet I will finish it after lunch and give it to you. Ms Kim says. What? No, we have a rule about that, here read it! Mr Blaney Sir responds. The rule says everyday so Im not late, I have all day to finish it. Ms. Kim insists. EVERYDAY means in the morning, OBVIOUSLY. Replies Mr Blaney Sir. It is NOT obvious at all. I will challenge your rule. Rebuts Ms. Kim So you can see they disagree. They decide to take the issue to court for a judge to decide. Now if this was a criminal law situation (like our cases in class) the court they would go to would be a Federal court. This is because Criminal law in Canada is Federal/National law. There are three levels of court in Canada for criminal cases.they are as follows..
59
A criminal case starts at the lowest level (federal court). It can move to the higher courts if an APPEAL is granted. Perhaps our case from the above example would be called Kim V. GLPS (2011) FC The name of the person complaining (starting the action) is first, the person answering (respondent) is second . The V. many people think means versus but actually means and. Next is the date of the case and finally the FC is the level of court that listened to the case. Back to the case.. The judge listens to both Mr Blaney Sir and Ms. Kim, unbelievably the judge agrees that because the written law is NOT clear in its words that the word everyday is a very broad word so everyday should be a very broad deadline. Homework should not be at 9:00 am , but rather by the end of the day. This decision on what everyday means (by the end of the day) NOW BECOMES LAW. All judges at this level (the federal court level) must follow this rule. This is called Stare Decisis (to stand by things decided) and it is a VERY important part of fairness. If other judges dont follow this rule, then some students would be punished
60
for being late, while other students would NOT be punished. HOW UNFAIR that would be!!! All people must be treated the same. The only judges who dont have to follow this rule are judges at a HIGHER level of court. They can re-think about what everyday means. Anyway, Mr. Blaney Sir is furious! He has never been so angry in all of his life! Look at how angry Mr. Blaney Sir. seems.
Now students are showing up at his house late in the night (usually at 11:59 pm) and waking him up to give him their homework! Mr Blaney Sir has only one hope he must file a leave for appeal (usually just called an appeal) to a higher court. The higher court doesnt have to accept the appeal (they can deny the application), but Mr. Blaney Sir is so awesome that they decide to grant him an appeal! Mr. Blaney Sir will now argue his case before an appeal court. What a wonderful day Mr. Blaney Sir is having. The judges of the Federal Appeal Court listen to the case which is now called GLPS V. Kim (2012) FCA The judges decide that the lower court judges were unreasonable to allow students to wake up Mr. Blaney Sir. Because they do NOT have to follow the lower courts common law, they decide instead that everyday should mean before the end of class. Because of the judges decision the rule (common law) is now that all homework has to be finished by the end of the class, students who wake Mr. Blaney up at home, will now all be punished by every judge working at the Federal Court of Appeal level, and also by every judge in lower courts (Federal Court judges) , because they MUST all follow this rule. That makes Mr. Blaney Sir a little happier. Look how a little happy Mr. Blaney Sir looks now.
61
But of course Mr. Blaney Sir is not totally satisfied because there still is a problem. Now students in his class are NOT listening well to his lecture they are doing their homework during class time!!! He decides to appeal the case again to the highest court. The SUPREME COURT! Again, because Mr. Blaney Sir is so awesome the Supreme Court decides to grant him the appeal!!! What a wonderful day it is in Mr Blaney Sirs world! This case would be called GLPS V. Kim (2012) SCC The wise judges in the Supreme Court listen to Ms. Kim and Mr Blaneys arguments. They agree that a teacher has a right to set an exact deadline, because he knows how to manage the class best. They now define everyday to mean by the end of the school day OR at an exact time mentioned by the teacher. Wow TOTAL VICOTRY for Mr. Blaney Sir!!! Mr. Blaney Sir is out of his mind with joy. Look at how out of his mind with joy Mr. Blaney Sir is!
Now all students who go to court for NOT doing there homework before the exact time Mr. Blaney Sir says will be guilty, (and he hopes punished strongly) in all courts, at all levels. The only people who can change this are 1) The Supreme Court, because they dont have to follow their own common lawthey can change their minds. 2) The government , by re-writing the law and explaining a new (clearer) definition of everyday. Because of the outcome of GLPS v. Kim, Mr. Blaney Sir thinks.common law makes VERY good common sense..
62
To know the common law well, you need an annotated code. The annotated criminal code contains all of the codified law written by the government, and all of the common law made by the judges. But be careful, these books might hurt your eyes. The codified version of the criminal code is about 21 pages, the annotated version is 1,453. Children May Not Be Human. Human rights are a big issue nowadays. The idea of humans having natural rights and freedoms is a very old concept, but it didnt receive a lot of popular attention until 1948. In that year many countries got together in the newly formed UN (United Nations) and signed a international law (codified law) called the UDHR (Universal Declaration of Human Rights). Almost all countries have signed the document. The code is a list of all the rights and freedoms people naturally have and that governments should NOT interfere with, and should ALWAYS respect. The countries that signed the document agree NEVER to write laws that go against rights and freedoms listed in the UNDHR. Age is NOT listed as something s that governments should NEVER discriminate against (they should treat all people the same , it doesnt matter what age they are) in the UDHR, but since the UDHR, there have been many other laws passed to protect children in the international community , maybe the most important is the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child. (UNCRC). Again countries that signed the UNCRC agree never to make laws that go against this code. Most countries in their own constitution have included the spirit of Human Rights developed by the UN. In most constitutions there are some guarantees for peoples freedoms and rights. (In Korea Chapter 2 of your constitution lists these rights), in Canada we have a constitutional document called The Charter of Rights and Freedoms which does lists the same thing. In Canada, the UN and Korea people of ALL ages are protected from discrimination, and special protections are made available for children. The following are examples
Article 19 (UNCRC)
1. States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child.
EQUALITY RIGHTS (CANADIAN CONSTITUTION/CHARTER OF RIGHTS)
63
Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
Article 11
Article 11 (Korean Constituion) All citizens shall be equal before the law, and there shall be no discrimination in political, economic, social or cultural life on account of sex, religion or social status. So section 43 , which defends a parents right to hit a child, but DOES NOT defend a parents right to hit another adult, is clearly not following its promise to protect children, or to NOT treat them differently. Hmmmm. What excuse does the Canadian government have to give children their human rights? Perhaps the Canadian government has done secret experiments and found out that children are NOT human at all, and they are actually zombies!!!! Hmmmm..that would explain all the sleeping in my class. Now I get it!
Who Can Hit Me? Well Ive got good news and Ive got bad news? Which do you want to hear first? Ok lets start with the BAD NEWS. When you are a child other people CAN hit you, and the police cant do much about it. The GOOD NEWS is that the list of people who can hit, and the list situations in which they CAN hit you is getting MUCH SHORTER! Historically (throughout history) kids could be hit by just about anyone , until they reached the age of 18. This included, parents, teachers, tutors, babysitters, care givers etc Not only that they could be hit with anything from a hand, to a fist, to a board, to a belt, to a stick. OUCH!!!!!!!!!! They could be hit for any reason, out of anger, to teach them a lesson, or just because somebody didnt like the way you look. It was all fine, you are a kid, assault laws just didnt consider or protect your situation. Nowadays, with the growth of human rights (and human rights groups representing children) things are different. Slowly, things are changing and things are getting better! Like I said, GOOD NEWS!!!!
64
As you must remember from class in Canada the assault laws (related to our case, there are more actually) are as follows S. 265 (gives a definition of assault) S 266 (outlines the punishment possibilities) S 267 Assault with a weapon/bodily harm S 268 Aggravated Assault S 43 The defence for teachers/parents/caregivers v. assault. As we have discussed in class there are 4 main elements of the general assault section (s 265). They are as follows.
1) No consent (the person you hit has NOT agreed to be hit). 2) Applying force (force meaning doing something physical) 3) Intentionally (you meant to do it, remember means rae) 4) Indirectly or directly (by your body or by an object) This is a very broad (wide) definition of assault. It is a problem with Canadian law perhaps for parents. Think about it This definition of assault would include all of the following situations 1) Pulling on pushing your child. 2) Hugging or kissing your child (if they didnt want to be hugged or kissed). 3) Stopping your child from leaving the house. 4) Picking up your child if they dont want to be picked up. Etc. NOT only that but section 265 b) makes the definition of assault even wider!!! It says any attempt , or threat, even by gesture is also considered a crime!!! WOW! That makes it very hard to control your child when they are having a temper tantrum!
65
BUT DONT WORRY!!! Thank GOD for section 43 of Canadas Criminal Code!. S. 43 is a defence to save parents and others the problem of being arrested for these actions. S. 43 says. 43. Every schoolteacher, parent or person standing in the place of a parent is justified in using force by way of correction toward a pupil or child, as the case may be, who is under his care, if the force does not exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances. So then parents, teachers or caregivers CAN apply force (or spank) children if 1) it is for correction 2) and if the force reasonably matches the curcumstances. For a long time this basically meant that if a parent, caregiver, or teacher HIT a student , police would NOT charge them with assault. This also meant kids were getting HIT A LOT!!!! BUT NEVER FEAR COMMON LAW IS HERE. Actually this is a VERY OLD section of the criminal code (it dates back to 1896). The government had old thinking back then, but THANK GOD for judges!!! They are alive and living in modern times, they can apply modern thinking to old laws! A few recent cases have made some very important changes to section 43 through common lawthe following are the important decisions you should know about because they now ARE the law you need to know for this weeks case. Please read carefully. Ogg-Moss v. Canada (Supreme Court of Canada) 1984 A mental retardation counsellor reacts to a child in his care who spills milk on the ground in front of him to get a reaction. Ogg-Moss (the counsellor) grabs a large metal spoon off the table and whacks the boy in the head five times (not causing serious injury) screaming at the retarded boy No, No, No. Ogg-Moss is charged with assualt. The judges convicts Ogg-Moss of assualt saying that section 43 DOES NOT protect Ogg-Moss because the defence only applies to action which seeks to correct and a mentally retarded person is not able to understand that the punishments corrective lesson, nor is able to understand the punishment is intended for corrective use. Brisson v.Lafointaine (Civil Case)
Brisson a school teacher is angered by a student who continually causes disruptions in class. The teacher confronts the student, who laughs in the teachers face, the school
66
teacher responds by suddenly knocking him to the floor and then drags him across the floor and throws him violently out of the classroom. The judge says a schoolteachers power of correction can only be exercised in the interest of instruction. Any punishment .motivated by arbitrariness, caprice, anger or bad humour constitutes an offence punishable like ordinary offences. Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v Canada (2004 Supreme Court of Canada) 2004 A childs rights group (CFC) challenges the s. 43 defence saying that it goes against the age equality guarantees (and other guarantees) in Canadas constitution. The court agrees that it does. Any law that goes against the constitution should be erased. However the court realizes that the reason CFC wants to get rid of S 43 is to protect children, and they wonder if getting rid of s 43 would really accomplish that ? The court decided that it would NOT. The court realized that getting rid of section 43 would give parents VERY little ability to control heir children, and a parents ability to control their children is VERY NECESSARY for a childs protection. Also the court worried that the police would arrest too many parents and split up families, and children would be less cared for (and less protected), because many of them might end up in orphanages. The court decided to instead LIMIT the scope (power) of section 43. The following are a list of limits the court decided on -Under 2 and over 12 (not allowed) -must be for corrective purposes NOT out of anger. -cannot use an object -child must be capable of understanding corrective intent or benefit. -does NOT apply to teachers (unless used to remove a student from class, or to protect the safety of other students) So if you do travel to Canada and end up getting hit by someone. Check the list. You might have a good opportunity for REVENGE through legal justice.just remember in Canada we call 911 not 119 in the case of emergency.
67
68
R v. Ivy Case
Assault (DEFINITION)
265. (1) A person commits an assault when
(a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly; (b) he attempts or threatens, by an act or a gesture, to apply force to another person, if he has, or causes that other person to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose; or
(c) while openly wearing or carrying a weapon or an imitation thereof, he accosts or impedes another person or begs. The assault section of the criminal code (as you can see) is VERY broad and catches many , many actions. Consent cannot mean that a person was forced to submit, or felt like they had to submit because of authority or other reason. The consent must be from 100% free will.
Punishment:
Assault
266. Every one who commits an assault is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction. This is the punishment section of the CRIMINAL CODE , as you can see assault
Assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm
69
With a Weapon/ Causing Bodily Harm

267. Every one who, in committing an assault,
(a) carries, uses or threatens to use a weapon or an imitation thereof, or (b) causes bodily harm to the complainant, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months.
Aggravated Assault
268. (1) Every one commits an aggravated assault who wounds, maims, disfigures or endangers the life of the complainant.
Punishment
(2) Every one who commits an aggravated assault is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.
70
Defence:
Protection of Persons in Authority
Correction of child by force
43. Every schoolteacher, parent or person standing in the place of a parent is justified in using force by way of correction toward a pupil or child, as the case may be, who is under his care, if the force does not exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances.
This is the codified defence for assualt by parents (or school teachers/caretakers) on children. It is what most parents use to defend themselves from prosecution. Traditionally children have been subjected to corporal punishment at schools, and at care centers because of the common law concept of loco parentis(in the place of the parents), which automatically assumes that those taking care of children have all of the rights their parents have.
Recently a few cases have either supported this (in very minimal ways) or rejected this common law principal.
There are two other common law defences (defences that have been accepted) by courts for a long time ago and continue to have power. They are
1) Necessity 2) De minimus
71
Common Law
Ogg-Moss v. Canada (Supreme Court of Canada) 1984
A mental retardation counsellor reacts to a child in his care who spills milk on the ground in front of him to get a reaction. Ogg-Moss (the counsellor) grabs a large metal spoon off the table and whacks the boy in the head five times (not causing serious injury) screaming at the retarded boy No, No, No. Ogg-Moss is charged with assualt. The judges convicts Ogg-Moss of assualt saying that section 43 DOES NOT protect Ogg-Moss because the defence only applies to action which seeks to correct and a mentally retarded person is not able to understand that the punishments corrective lesson, nor is able to understand the punishment is intended for corrective use.
The relationship of loco parentis does NOT arise from putting the child in the temporary care of another person. The relationship is established ONLY when the parents intend that person to assume full and specific control of their child, and that person takes on full heartedly the parental role with the childs best interests in mind in a comprehensive way, which must include a greater interest than financial gain.
Brisson v.Lafointaine
(Civil Case) schoolteachers power of correction can only be
exercised in the interest of instruction. Any punishment .motivated by arbitrariness, caprice, anger or bad humour constitutes an offence punishable like ordinary offences.
R. V. Murphy corrective force successfully shields a babysitter from prosecution. Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v Canada (2004 Supreme Court of Canada) 2004
-Under 2 and over 12 (not allowed) -must be for corrective purposes NOT out of anger.
-cannot use an onbject -child must be capable of understanding corrective intent or benefit. -does NOT apply to teachers (in most cases)
72
OTHER DEFENCES: De minimus/ necessity 3) Imminent danger 2) absence of legal alternative 3) must avoid more harm than it inflicts.
Canadian Court System:
THE COMMON LAW
SO WHAT IS COMMON LAW? LAST WEEK WE TALKED ABOUT CODIFIED LAW, LAW THAT IS
WRITTEN DOWN.
THERE IS ANOTHER KIND OF LAW THOUGH.ONE THAT IS MAYBE EVEN WRITTEN LAW IS MADE BY YOUR GOVERNMENT. COMMON COMMON
STRONGER THAN WRITTEN LAW.
LAW IS MADE BY JUDGES, IN THE DECISIONS THEY MAKE ABOUT WRITTEN LAWS.
73
LAW ISNT WRITTEN DOWN ANYWHERE
(EXCEPT ANNOTATED CODES, OR IN LAW JOURNALS)
BUT IT IS VERY STRONG INDEED. LETS LOOK AT AN EXAMPLE TO HELP YOU UNDERSTAND.
LETS SAY YOUR TEACHER MAKES A CLASSROOM RULE TO HELP MAKE THE CLASS FUNCTION
WELL.
THE TEACHER WRITES THE LAW DOWN AND PUTS IT ON THE WALL LIKE HE USUALLY THE CLASSROOM RULE IS AS FOLLOWS.
DOES (CODIFIED).
STUDENTS MUST DO THEIR HOMEWORK EACH DAY
WOW! EASY TO UNDERSTAND RIGHT? VERY CLEAR ISNT IT? .OR IS IT? BELIEVE IT OR NOT.SOONER OR LATER THE TEACHERS LAW WILL BE CHALLENGED BY A
STUDENT.
FOR EXAMPLE DANIEL KIM SHOWS UP IN CLASS AT 9:00 AM AND DOESNT HAVE WHEN ACCUSED BY THE TEACHER OF BREAKING THE RULE DANIEL
HIS HOMEWORK FINISHED.
KIM SAYS HE HASNT BROKEN THE RULE, BECAUSE HE PLANS ON FINISHING HIS HOMEWORK
AFTER LUNCH!
THE TEACHER SAYS : NO WAY, EACH DAY MEANS BEFORE CLASS STARTS THE NEXT DAY! DANILE KIM SAYS: NO WAY, EACH DAY MEANS SOMETIME BEFORE THE NEXT DAY ENDS.
WELL THEY GO TO COURT TO ASK THE JUDGE WHAT HE THINKS EACH DAY MEANS.
THE CASE MIGHT BE CALLED GLPS V. KIM (2011) FC THE JUDGE DECIDES THAT IT MEANS ANYTIME THE NEXT DAY (AS DANIEL SUGGESTED,
BECAUSE THE JUDGE THINKS
IF THE LAW MEANT BY 9 AM , IT WOULD HAVE BEEN WRITTEN
AS BEFORE
9:00) .
74
A CHILDS RIGHTS RECOGNIZED
CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS

Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:
GUARANTEE OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS

Rights and freedoms in Canada
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS
Fundamental freedoms
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (a) freedom of conscience and religion; (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and (d) freedom of association.
Life, liberty and security of person
7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
Treatment or punishment
12. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.
75
EQUALITY RIGHTS
Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
Convention on the Rights of the Child

Article 19
1. States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child.
76
R v. Kamala Case CODIFIED LAW

Homicide
Section 222. Homocide definition To commit a direct/indirect that causes the death of a human being.
2 KINDS OF HOMOCIDE:
*Culpable = fault
Crime a) Murder
77
NOT A CRIME
b) Manslaughter
Question: Medusa kills by turning to stone. Culpable or Not Culpable?
Three Ways to be CULPABLE

1) Break the law (unlawful action) causing death. 2) Negligence causing death. 3) To Intentionally threaten , intimidate, or mislead a person causing death. *Negligence can mean NOT doing something you should have done. It can also mean doing something so poorly that you shouldnt have done it at all.
Murder
s. 229. Lists murder as an offence.
Classification of murder
231. (1) Defines 1st degree MURDER (7) Defines 2nd degree MURDER
232. Defines MANSLAUGHTER. (provocation: causes loss of control) 235. PUNISHMENT for murder/manslaughter
78
1st Degree Murder Planned 25 years jail No Parole
2nd Degree Murder Not planned (impulsive) 25 years jail Parole possible after 10 years
Manslaughter provoked 4-25 years jail Parole possible after 1/3 sentence served.
79
COMMON LAW
Dudley and Stephens (1884) England

DUDLEY (Captain), Stephens (first mate), Brooks (sailor), Richard Parker (Cabin Boy) abandon ship while their boat sinks 2,000 km from the coast of Australia and 700 km from the nearest landmass.
80
The men are unable to bring much food, and loose some of it in the storm over the side of the boat. All they have are two cans of turnip. They do manage to catch a sea turtle, they eat it and also finish the turnip by the end of the first week. After one week they eat the cabin boy (he has become very ill due to secretly drinking sea water). Dudley argues they MUST eat Parker to save themselves, they do so. They are rescued about a week later after consuming most of his body. Brooks is not charged as he does NOT participate in the murder, but does eat the body. They are charged with murder when back in England. The Defence argues the defence of Necessity. The judges refuse to allow the defence, as the defence if accepted could be used for too many actions and cause more problems.
EX: Hungry people might steal and use the defence. EX: Homeless people might trespass and use the defence.
The two (Dudley and Stephens) are sentenced to death by hanging after being found guilty of murder. Later there sentences are reduced to only 6 months in jail by the Queen.
RE A (CHILDREN) (CONJOINED TWINS: SURGICAL SEPARATION) [2001] Fam 147
RE: (CHILDREN) (CONJOINED TWINS: SURGICAL SEPARATION) [2001
Reference Question submitted to the Canadian Supreme Court. A hospital in Canada wants to perform an operation on Siamese twins Mary and Jodie. The mother refuses (religious grounds). The hospital asks judge to intervene and allow operation to save one , but kill the other.
81
The court accepts the argument of Necessity Three conditions MUST ALL be present for the necessity defence to apply to criminal action. 1) Imminent Peril 2) No legal alternative 3) The weight of the harm MUST NOT outweight the weight of the good.
R V. Perica (SCC) Drug Smugglers

Drug smugglers in international waters have problems with their boat, and it is doomed to sink. They enter Canadian waters to get help. They are arrested and charged with smuggling drugs into Canada. They argue necessity. The judge ..agrees or disagrees? What do you think (review the three point test for necessity) apply the test to this fact situation.
R. v. Latimer [2001] 1 S.C.C.

mercy killing Tracy Latimer, was 12-years-old and had cerebral palsy. As a result, she was quadriplegic, could not speak, and had the mental abilities of an infant. However, she was not dying of her disability.
82
Meiwes (German Case 2004) manslaughter for cannibal
The case opened the door for a manslaughter defence arguments rather than the defence of necessity
Convicted Guilty of Manslaughter

Meiwes has a cannibalistic fantasy and other (non mentionable). He expresses his desires and fantasy on the internet. A man replies that he has a fantasy to be eaten. The man insists on flying to Germany to meet Meiwes in person. After spending the evening together, the man begs Meiwes to eat him. Meiwes (and the other man) do suffer from some kind of mental sickness (though are not legally insane). The defence argues that because of this sickness and the fact the victim provoked Meiwes that Meiwes was not able to exercise self control. Accepted that the charges of murder not apply and that manslaughter was more suitable.
83
Each student will be assigned a role for each trial. Students will participate in 3 trials during this summers intensive GLPS program. The three trials will give each student to practice their ability in each position (Crown lawyer, Defence lawyer, Witness). Students will rotate through each of the positions, so it is necessary for all students to understand and be able to participate in each role. The following is an overview of each role that will participate in the trial. Remember it is important to BE the character you are assigned. In a mock trial, teams score points for making their presentations as believable as possible. Students should really try to get into the character of the role they are assigned.
84
Crown Attorney (2-4 students)
The Crown attorney (sometimes called (crown prosecutors) are lawyers that work for the state. The crown represents the head of the Canadian state which is the queen. The queen is represented by the word crown as in the crown she wears on her head.
Because this Mock trial scenario is based on Canadian court system and Canadian law the crown attorney in our example is working for the Canadian government. The crown attorneys job is to help maintain law and order in society. The crown must inform the judge of all of the facts of the crime.
The Crown must prove. The date The place That the crime was committed That the accused committed the crime. All elements of the crime have been fulfilled.
(*elements of a crime are little acts that when added together make up a crime).
85
The crown must prove all of these things beyond a reasonable doubt. This is the standard of proof used for criminal trials. The crown will use the evidence it has gathered from police reports, witnesses and other sources to try and convince the judge that the accused is guilty of the crime. In Canada (unlike Korea) the crown attorneys are NOT actively involved in bringing charges against the accused (crown attorneys dont themselves start or participate in the police investigation), the crowns job is instead to respond to the investigation and charges made by the police. It is thought that by separating crown and police responsibilities there is less bias in the system and more protection for the rights of the accused. In fact, the prime duty of the crown is NOT to seek a conviction, but rather to present all of the evidence they have to ensure that justice is done. The Crown is also required to disclose all facts whether or not it shows guilt or innocence of the accused. Crown attorneys will perform the following speaking duties during the trail. (Speaking duties will be discussed in detail in a later chapter). 1) 2) 3) 4) Opening address. Examination in Chief of Crown Witnesses. Cross Examination of Defense Witnesses. Closing Arguments.
86
Defense Attorney (2-4 students)
The defence attorneys job is to protect the rights of the accused. Many people misunderstand the role of defence attorneys because of how they are represented on TV or in movies. Defence lawyers often have a bad reputation because of this misunderstanding. Many of you may think defence lawyers are in court ONLY to WIN AT ALL COSTS, in other words to get their client off. Actually the main role of a defence lawyer is to make sure that the Crown proves their case and that the rights of the accused are protected. It is the duty of the defence attorney to put the Crowns case through the strongest possible test to make sure that if the defence lawyers client is found guilty it is only because there remains NO reasonable doubt. This role is of fundamental importance in any free society and deserves absolute respect. The defence lawyer does NOT need to prove anything. The defence lawyer just must STOP the Crown from proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt. In real trials the defence does not have to call any witnesses and it is the right of the accused to remain silent. However, in this mock trial all witnesses must be called to testify. Defence attorneys will perform the following speaking duties during the trail. (Speaking duties will be discussed in detail in a later chapter). 4) 5) 6) 4) Opening address. Examination in Chief of Crown Witnesses. Cross Examination of Defense Witnesses. Closing Arguments.
87
The Accused (1 Student)

And Other Witnesses ( 3 students)
Witnesses and the accused are people who have seen or experienced the events in question. Their task is to answer clearly and truthfully so that the judge can understand what really happened. Before you begin your role you will need to think about the following ideas WHO ARE YOU? When you play one of the witness roles in the mock trial you need to know as much as you can about who the character is. Your job is to act out the role of the witness or the accused as close to reality as you can. What would the witness wear in the courtroom/ How would the witness speak? How would the witness act? What are the witnesses actions and attitude? Get to know your character by reading the character profile and the fact sheets that are included with the case materials. Practice your role and try to BE the character. Witnesses must study their fact sheets carefully. The answers they give in court must match the details on their fact sheet, changing details on the fact sheet is NOT allowed. This would be dishonest. It could lead to charges of perjury, obstruction of justice and would also automatically lead to large point deductions for the witness team. If you are asked questions to which answers are not provided you may answer freely. If you feel there are details you must add to the fact sheet, first speak to your teacher about it. Fact sheet information should be confidential between you and your lawyer(s). The accused is innocent until proven guilty. Think about this idea. What does it mean for the accused?
88
The Judge (teacher)

The judge has two roles in the courtroom 1) The judge maintains order and organization of the court with the assistance of the bailiff. 2) The judge decides the innocence or guilt of the accused (and which team wins). Judges are objective witnesses to the trial process. The judge will settle all disputes that arise during the trial process (objections). The judge will also pay close attention to make sure all proper courtroom procedures are followed and that evidence is admissible. When speaking to the judge students should use the term your honour to demonstrate their respect for his leading role in the justice system. Although the judge is an expert in the area of criminal law, crown and defence lawyers still have a duty to prove all elements of the case, explain the applicable law and explain how the law applies to the fact situation of each case during a criminal trial. The judge will NOT use his expertise to jump to any conclusions if these conclusions are not introduced clearly by lawyers during the trial process. The judge will decide two main points during the trial 1) The innocence or guilt of the accused 2) Which team has won the competition by providing the best performance. At the end of the trial the judge will deliver a verdict and a disposition.
89
The Bailiff (PA)

At GLPS the role of court clerk and bailiff will be combined to make things simple. The bailiffs main duty is to assist the judge with the administration and organization of the trial. The bailiff is responsible for maintaining safety and a respectful atmosphere in the courtroom. The bailiff has many administrative duties. The following is a list of duties the bailiff (and court clerk) are responsible for. The bailiff will begin the trial by calling to order all those in attendance. The bailiff will conduct the arraignment (read the charge against the accused). The bailiff will administer the oath to all of the witnesses. The bailiff will accept and enter into evidence exhibits/submissions approved by the judge. . The bailiff will maintain order in the courtroom and remove persons who are disruptive to the administration of justice. The bailiff will take the accused into custody if ordered by the judge to do so. The bailiff should be treated with great respect and listened to carefully. Failure to do so could result in serious consequences including arrest for contempt of court. The only person superseding the bailiff in the entire courtroom is the judge.
90
DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENT ROLES FOR TRIAL
Number of Students Opening Statement Direct Exam Witness 1 Direct Exam Witness 2 Cross Exam Witness 1 Cross Exam Witness 2 Witness Witness Closing Statement
6
Lawyer 1 Lawyer 2 Lawyer 1 Lawyer 3 Lawyer 4 Witness 1 Witness 2 Lawyer 2
5
4
91
92
Trial Script Summary

1. Bailiff escorts judge to his chair and calls court to order; court is formally opened. 2. Counsel (lawyers) stand to identify themselves. (Crown followed by defence). 3. Bailiff reads the indictment and the accused pleads to the charges. 4. Crown counsel makes opening statement. 5. Crown witness is sworn in before testifying. 6. Crown examines witnesses (Direct Examination). 7. Defence examines witness (Cross Examination) 8. Steps 5-8 repeated for each Crown witness. 9. Defence makes opening statement. 10. Steps 5-8 are repeated for each defence witness (defence conducts Direct Exam and Crown conducts Cross Examination. 11. Defence presents closing arguments. 12. Crown presents closing arguments. 13. Judge leaves to prepare decision. (Court adjourns briefly). 14. Judge returns to deliver the verdict and disposition. 15. Court is adjourned.
93
Trial Script Particulars:

1. Call to Order/ Opening of the Court (by Bailiff) When all participants have taken their places, the bailiff will call in the judge. The bailiff will say. Order All Rise Anyone having business before the GLPS Superior Court of Justice shall be heard. Long live the Queen (Pause) Take your seats 2. Counsel identify themselves (Crown followed by Defence Lawyers). Crown Lawyers say. (Standing) Your Honour I am here to represent the interests of her Majesty the Queen/ or the Crown (Standing) My name is ex: Park Ji Young. (bow) I will delivering the (speaking role ex: Opening Statement/Cross Examination). I am prepared to proceed. (be seated). Defence Lawyers say Your Honour I am here to represent the accused Mrs. Johnson. My name is ex: Moon Song Won. (bow) I will delivering the (speaking role ex: Opening Statement/Cross Examination). I am prepared to proceed. (be seated).
94
3. Bailiff reads the indictment /The accused enters plea.(Bailiff/Accused) After the Crown and Defence lawyers have identified themselves, the bailiff will read the charge as it is written in the case materials. See the materials for the case you are enacting. The following is an example of what an indictment might sound like when read by the bailff in court. (Bailiff-standing): 1.Amanda Johnson, stands charged that he/she on or about on the 1st day of October 2011 in the City of Yourtown in committed an assault upon Tobby Fantasia cause bodily harm to him/her contrary to the criminal code; How say you to this charge? Do you plead guilty or not guilty? (Accused- standing) Not guilty. (Bailiff-standing) 2.And stands further charged that he/she on or about on the 1st day of October 2011 in the City of Yourtown assaulted Tobby Fantasia a police officer, contrary to the criminal code. How say you to this charge? Do you plead guilty or not guilty? (Accused- standing) Not guilty.
4.Crown counsel makes opening statement. (Crown Counsel) The Crown will stand and begin to deliver the opening statement before the judge and the audience. The crown may stand at the table or walk freely. For details see Crown Preparation and Strategy Guide. (Opening Statement section).
95
5. Crown witness is sworn in before testifying. (Bailiff/Witness) After the opening statement is given the Crown will call their first witness to the witness stand. Depending on the witnesses faith, the witness may be sworn in using different methods... (swearing on a religious text or a solemn affirmation for the non religious). (Bailiff-standing) Will you state your name for the court please? (Witness-standing in witness box) My name is Mr. Bill Smith (Bailiff-standing) Please raise your right hand. (Witness-standing in witness box) Raises right hand- puts left hand on religious book or left hand on heart. (Bailiff-standing) (Religious Affirmation) Do you swear that the evidence to be given by you to this court shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God? or (Solemn Affirmation) Do you solemnly affirm that the evidence to be given by you to this court shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? (Accused-standing with hands in position) I do.
96
6. Crown examines witnesses (Direct Examination). (Crown Counsel) After the witness is sworn in the Crown counsel approaches the witness box and begins the direct examination of the witness. For details see Crown Preparation and Strategy Guide. (Direct Examination section). At the end of the direct examination the Crown counsel will say No further questions your honour. 7.Defence examines witness (Cross Examination) (Defence Counsel) After the Crown has completed their direct examination the defence counsel will approach the witness box when the judge calls and then begin the cross examination of the witness. For details see Defence Preparation and Strategy Guide. (Cross Examination section). At the end of the cross examination the Defence counsel will say No further questions your honour. 8.Steps 5-8 repeated for each Crown witness. The above steps are repeated for each Crown witness (there are two). When the Crown has finished with the Questioning of their last witness the Crown Counsel will announce The Crown rests it case your honour. 9. Defence makes opening statement. The Defence Counsel will then stand and begin to deliver his opening statement before the judge and the audience. The Defence counsel may stand at their table or walk freely. For details see Defence Preparation and Strategy Guide. (Opening Statement
97
section). 10. Steps 5-8 are repeated for each Defence witness Now the Defence conducts the direct exam and Crown conducts cross examination. For details of the Direct Exam see Defence Preparation and Strategy Guide. (Direct Examination section). For details of the Cross Exam see Crown Preparation and Strategy Guide. (Cross Examination section). At the end of the cross examination the Crown counsel will say No further questions your honour. When the Defence has finished with the Questioning of their last witness the Crown Counsel will announce The Defence rests it case your honour. 11. Defence presents closing arguments. (Defence) After both sides have rested their cases, the judge will then call upon the defence lawyers to deliver their closing arguments. The defence may deliver the closing statement standing at their table, or walk freely. For details of the Closing Argument see Defence Preparation and Strategy Guide. (Closing Argument section). 12.Crown presents closing arguments. (Crown) After the Defence has finished their closing argument, the judge will then call upon the crown lawyers to deliver their closing arguments. The Crown may deliver the closing statement standing at their table, or walk freely. For details of the Closing Argument see Defence Preparation and Strategy Guide. (Closing Argument section).
98
13. Judge leaves to prepare decision. (Court adjourns briefly). (Bailiff) After both sides have completed their closing arguments, the judge will signal the Bailiff to adjourn the court for a few minutes while the judge contemplates his decision in the judges chambers. When the judge is ready to adjourn the Bailiff will say. (Bailiff-Standing) All rise. (pause) Court will now recess for 5-10 minutes. When the judge is ready to deliver his verdict he will return and the bailiff will again call the court to order. (Bailiff-Standing) All rise. (pause) Court is now again in session, please be seated.
14. Judge returns to deliver the verdict and disposition. When the judge is ready to deliver his verdict he will return and the bailiff will again call the court to order. (Bailiff-Standing) All rise. (pause) Court is now again in session, please be seated. The judge will then ask the accused to stand. (Judge-sitting) example: Mr/Mrs. Thomas please rise. On the first charge the accused faces, of assault alleged to have been committed on or about on the date of the 1st of October 2011 in Yourtown contrary to criminal code section (XXX), I do hereby find the accused Guilty/ not guilty. On the second charge of theft alleged to have been committed on or about on the date of the 1st of October 2011 which was alleged to have been committed
99
in Yourtown contrary to criminal code section (XXX), I do hereby find the accused Guilty/ not guilty. According to these finding I sentence the accused to .(sentencing) , and order the accused to be remanded in custody at once or According to these finding I order the accused released and this matter resolved. (Bailiff then issues the accused out of the courtroom or takes the accused into custody). After the accused is released or detained the judge will then offer a brief summary of the reasons for his decision as well as announce the winning team and provide feedback on team performances (disposition). 15.Court is adjourned. (Bailiff)
After the judge has completed his disposition, the Bailiff will then order All Rise The court is now adjourned. This announcement presentation. marks the completion of the mock trial
100
GLPS Mock Trial Tournament Time Chart: 1. Call to order, read charge, enter plea, intro of teams 2. Crown opening statement 3. Crown Witness A Direct Exam Cross Exam 4. Crown Witness B Direct Exam Cross Exam 5. Defence- Opening Statement 6. Defence Witness A Direct Exam Cross Exam 7. Defence Witness B Direct Exam Cross Exam 8 Defence Closing Statement 9. Crown Closing Statement 10. Short Recess/ Judge Deliberation 11. Judge Verdict and Disposition Total allotted time 10 minutes 70-80minutes 3 minutes 5minutes
5 minutes 5 minutes
5 minutes 5 minutes 5 minutes
5 minutes 5 minutes
5 minutes 5 minutes. 5 minutes 5 minutes
101
SCORESHEET (JUDGES) CROWN Team LAWYERS Opening Statement: The lawyer provided a clear, concise and effective description of his/her side of the case. Direct Examination, lawyers utilized questions which required straightforward answers and brought out key information for their side of the case. Cross Examination, case. Throughout the questioning of witnesses lawyers utilized properly worded questions and exhibited a clear understanding of trial procedure. Closing Statement, the lawyer made an organized and well reasoned presentation summarizing the most important points for his/her teams side of the case and the main weaknesses of the other teams case. WITNESSES: Witnesses/the Accused were believable in their lawyers were able to bring out contradictions in testimony and weaken the other sides DEFENCE Team
characterizations, convincing in their testimony and did NOT unfairly deviate from their fact sheets. Witnesses/accused were well prepared for answering the questions posed to them under direct examination Witnesses/accused responded well to the questions posed to them under cross examination. TEAM Team members were courteous, followed courtroom rules and spoke clearly and distinctly Team members kept their presentations within the expected time ranges. TOTAL SCORE FOR TEAMS (Total 50 points) Point Details: 1-Poor, 2-Fair,3-Good,4-Very Good, 5-Excellent
102
COURT ROOM SET UP
Bailiff
JUDGE
Witness Stand
Defense Table
The Accused
Prosecution Table
AUDIENCE
103
The Crown Preparation and Strategy Guide
Use this Guide to prepare for court as a Crown lawyer.

Contains details about and help with . 1. Opening Statement 2. Direct Examination 3.Cross Examination 4. Closing Statement 5. Evidence
104

1. Opening Statement: The Crown is heard first in a criminal trial, this allows the defence a full opportunity to listen to the case against him/her. The order of speaking is important to allow the defence the opportunity to respond fully to all elements of the case made against them, a very important consideration connected to safeguarding the rights of the accused. The purpose of the opening statement is to put both legal and factual issues in context for the judge, and opposing counsel. In other words it is a chance for you to clearly express the theory of your case. It is also a chance for you to make a good first impression on the judge (first impressions are very important!- so be well organized and well spoken). It might be helpful for you to put yourself in the judges shoes. If you were the judge what would you like to know at the start of a trial? What would help you understand the case and the evidence? Things to include in your Opening Statement A. Provide a theory of the case B. C. D. E. F. State the cause of action. Introduce the facts. Overview of witnesses and evidence. Outline relief sought. (recommend sentencing). Conclusion.
105
A* Provide a theory of the case. What is this trial about? In a few sentences/paragraph explain the answer to this question. What is your theory of the case? Why was the man/woman who is in court today appear as the accused to face these charges. Give the judge a factual context in which to consider evidence. It is strongly encouraged students to use exhibits in their opening. For example, if you have a prepared sketch of the crime scene this could be very helpful to help the judge visualize and understand your theory of the case, the crime itself and the evidence that follows. Also there is opportunity for you to use other documents in your opening, if your case is relying on clause of a contract, then show the judge the clause. Sometimes photographs can be valuable also to show the extent of injuries or property damage. Be creative. A general rule is that the more visual the opening address is, the better it is.
B* State the cause of action. Explain the cause of action that is the basis for the crime (what section of the Criminal code was violated?) Also what elements of the crime are necessary to prove. In a more advanced trial any possible defenses should also be outlined. C* Introduce the (important) facts. This could be covered in Section A of the opening address, however it could be repeated here (to make very clear, or for emphasis). What happened for certain? What are the certain details of the crime that took place? Are there certain details about the accused that are important as they relate to the crime. (EX: the victim was killed by a gunshot wound.)
106
(EX: the accused was in the building when the victim was killed). (Ex: the accused has a matching handgun registered in his name). Facts are different from evidence. The opening is a time for you to introduce your story and your cast of witnesses. Let the witnesses themselves explain the specific details when they appear on the witness stand (evidence). Use the opening to point the judge to particular points, do not interfere too much by giving your witnesses evidence for them. If you go to far expect the judge to say something like Counsel, I would prefer to hear the evidence from your witnesses and NOT from you. A general rule is that general facts that are accepted by both sides can be mentioned as facts in the opening, and arguable points can only be spoken through witness evidence.
D* Overview of witnesses and evidence. Witnesses overview: At the end of the opening statement a judge should know who you are calling as a witness and what they will be testifying about. Be careful NOT to include specific details of what the witnesses will say or findings of fact into your opening address. EX: The Crown will be calling Dr. Watson to testify. Dr. Watson has been the Chief medical examiner at Yourtown hospital for five years, and has written multiple books about the effects of poison on the human body. He will be giving his opinion about the cause of the victims death. = OK EX: The Crown will be calling Dr. Watson to testify. Dr. Watson has been the Chief medical examiner at Yourtown hospital for five years, and has written multiple books about the effects of poison on the human body. He will be testifying that the victim was most certainly poisoned with arsenica chemical found by police in the accuseds home by police. = NOT OK.
107
Evidence overview What evidence does the Crown intend to introduce? Most evidence will require some kind of witness identification to be admitted into evidence , and therefore cannot be admitted into evidence in the opening statement. (Ex: the murder weapon would have to be identified by a police officer as the weapon found at the crime scene etc..) E*Outline relief sought. (recommend sentencing). The Criminal Code outlines the possible punishment for most types of crimes. Considering the circumstances of the crime, the negative impact on society, and the accuseds ability to be rehabilitated the Crown should suggest an appropriate degree of punishment. Talk to your teacher about sentencing guidelines and objectives for more information. F* Conclusion. A formal conclusion is necessary for your speech. The closing should sound something like. That concludes the Crowns opening address your honour. Should it please the court and your honour the crown would now like to proceed by calling our first witness Mr/Mrs____________. Things to Avoid in your Opening Statement: -Too much detail (this will tire and confuse the judge). -You CAN summarize general themes of expected witness testimony. But DO NOT BE TOO SPECIFIC. Exact witness testimony cannot be predicted and words cannot be placed in their mouths, this violates the credibility/objectivity of witnesses). -Arguments about the law should be saved for conclusion.
108
OPENING STATEMENT TEMPLATE (Example)

Theory of Case: Your honour, this case is about. Cause of Action: The accused has been charged according to CC section 322 (ex) Element A: Who Committed the crime? Facts A: Element B: Physical possession Facts B: Element C: Mental Intention Facts C: The accused has a
The accused was identified The stolen property was the crime scene CCTV in the area.
by a witness running from found at a second hand previous criminal record for store beside the accuseds theft when he was young. The victim had cuts on his The accused does NOT hand, and has a blood type have a job and has money that matches blood found problems. on broken window at crime scene. Witness & Evidence A Bystander: break and leaving shop. Hears sees Witness & Evidence B Report: Witness & Evidence C window Police Jewelry (Expert type and Recovered Accused has NOT had a job. landlordsaying that the Witness): accused is often late for cut rent. show Conclusion C Burden of proof met. The accused was seen on house.
accused stolen property from Ricks Statement from accuseds
CCTV TAPE: Review of CCTV Doctor camera, identifies accused in Blood area at time of crime. Conclusion A: Burden of proof met.
matching comments likelihood of match. Conclusion B Burden of proof met.
General Conclusion: We ask for a finding of guilt to the charges.
109
OPENING STATEMENT TEMPLATE

Theory of Case: Your honour, this case is about.
Cause of Action: The accused has been charged according to CC section Element A: Element B: Element C:
Facts A:
Facts B:
Facts C:
Witness & Evidence A
Witness & Evidence B
Witness & Evidence C
Conclusion A: Burden of proof met.
Conclusion B Burden of proof met.
Conclusion C Burden of proof met.
General Conclusion: We ask for a finding of _____to the charges. (see Documents - Templates)
110

2. Direct Examination: In a criminal trial the Examination in Chief allows the opportunity to prove their case. To be successful; you have to prove two things 1) The legal requirements of a case (ex: mens rae/actus rae) 2) Persuasive elements. (ex: Mr. Johnson IS a dangerous man who DOES have a bad temper). To prove these things you are going to have to submit evidence. Usually most of this evidence will come from witness testimony. The main problem most attorneys have is to present evidence in a way that is clear and convincing to the judge. Often attorneys ask too many questions, and receive too many answers. This means the important evidence gets lost. In preparing your questions for witnesses try and ask yourself. What is this case all about? The answer tells you what details ARE important and what details are NOT important. When preparing for the trial you will come across A LOT of evidence, dont try and use it all. A good attorney is an expert at separating important convincing facts, from unnecessary facts. An effective Examination in Chief depends on your witnesses presentation of the evidence. This section focuses on how best to work with the Crown witnesses to present the evidence at trial. A. Witness Preparation Before any trial a lot of time is spent between Crown Attorneys and their witnesses to prepare the giving of evidence. These rehearsals happen before all criminal trials in real court rooms. This is NOT dishonest if done properly. Attorneys practice HOW the evidence is given NOT WHAT evidence is given. Encouraging witnesses to change WHAT facts they will testify to is illegal. Remember, in our
111
mock trial system witnesses MUST stick to the facts sheets included in the case materials, changing any facts will result in a major team penalty from the judge. In real life lawyers and witnesses could face perjury/obstruction of justice charges, resulting in a ban from appearing in court again, or go to jail. It is also important to prepare your witnesses for issues that will likely come up during cross examination.
As you prepare your plan for Direct Examination these are some basic rules to keep in mind. BASIC RULES FOR DIRECT EXAMINATION Rule 1: The witness testifies (provides the details of the information) NOT counsel. Rule 2: Counsel should decide the order in which evidence is given through questioning. Rule 3: Personalize the Witness Rule 4: Ask simple questions using simple language. Rule 5: One question at a time. Rule 6: Focus on getting facts, not just opinions. Rule 7: Make sure the judge can easily understand the point you are making. Rule 8: Be as brief as possible.
112
Rule 1: The witness testifies (provides the details of the information) NOT counsel.
Witnesses will be believed and remembered well by judges because of the way they testifyNOT because of the brilliant questions the attorney asks them. The spotlight needs to stay on the witness, and the information the witness is giving. Let your witness tell the story. Also it is necessary for you to follow the rules of evidence carefully (* see rules of evidence later in this chapter). Lawyers are NOT supposed to dominate the Direct Exam, they ARE supposed to dominate Cross Examination. Rule 2: Counsel should decide the order in which evidence is given through questioning. You need to control witness testimony throughout the process. It is very important to get the witnesses information spoken in the correct, organized order. Step by step. It is best to make an outline of what issues you want to the witness to explain , and then write questions on each of those outline points. This is the best way of making sure the witness tells the complete story. Think carefully about what is the clearest way to tell the story? and what is least confusing way to tell the witnesses story to the judge?. It is also very common for lawyers to use guide posts, in the lawyers question. For example.. Q: Mr. White you have told us about your car accident in which you were injured, now let us talk about those injuries in more detail. This kind of guide posting technique can make your presentation clearer both for the judge and for your witness.
113
Rule 3: Personalize the Witness For the witnesses testimony to be effective, you have to show that the witness is a person to be trusted. Background information can be helpful for the judge to hear. If the witness is a doctor, talk about his experience and expertise. If the witness is a police officer introduce their work record. If the witness is accused of dishonesty introduce their contribution to society etc If your client is accused of a serious crime, , stand close to him while he is in the witness box, treat him in a friendly manner so that the judge will see you are not scared or nervous around him. Rule 4: Ask simple questions using simple language. At GLPS our mock trial situation is an English learning program. It is therefore even more important to use simple language so that you can be easily understood by the witness. The witness is NOT allowed to use paper or a script when answering questions. Keeping the questions simple also will help the judge follow your presentation. It will also help you make sure your questions have a clear purpose. Rule 5: One question at a time. Sometimes lawyers are too anxious to get to the point. Combining multiple ideas into one question confuses the witness and the judge often misses the point. Example (INCORRECT) Q: Did you notice her doing anything unusual, or did you notice that there was a difference in her mood? It is MUCH better to separate these questions into two, and allow your witness to answer each of them separately. This way the witness wont leave out any important details.
114
Example (CORRECT) Did you notice her doing anything unusual? (Witness answers) Did you notice that there was a difference in her mood? (witness answers).
Rule 6: Focus on getting facts, not just opinions. The opinions of expert witnesses (for example doctors) ARE important and valuable. However if your witness is not an expert (most are not) then that persons opinion is NOT valuable. The witness is there to testify to facts that they observed, that is all. Of course the witnesses have opinions about what happened, but that is because they witnessed facts which caused them to develop these opinions. The judge is interested in these facts so that the judge may form his own opinion. EX: The witness is of the opinion that the accused hated the victim. This is NOT IMPORTANT. However facts that led to that opinion are VERY IMPORTANT. What bad things did the accused say about the victim? Did the witness see the accused arguing with the victim? Rule 7: Make sure the judge can easily understand the point you are making. Do NOT rush through the witness testimony. You have practiced with the witness, and probably know what the witness will say. However this is the first time the judge is hearing the evidence or meeting the witness. There is nothing more common that beginner lawyers going too fast. There is of course a time limit, but a few of the following tips might help you solve this common problem A) Pause after the witness answers. (question, answer, pause). B) Slow down your witness, clarify points...it is perfectly ok for you
115
to interrupt your witness especially if you think the judge is missing your point. (Remind the witness out loud to slow down). EX: Sir let me stop you for a second, lets try and make sure everyone understands this clearly. (You might also remind a witness to speak up please). C) GO BACK. If the witness misses an important detail, go back after the answer and ask a further question about the information that was missed. D) Watch the judge. If the judge is confused you should be able to notice by looking at the judges face. Rule 8: Be as brief as possible. The more organized and prepared your presentation is, the last questions you will have to ask to prove your point. This is ALWAYS true. The more you talk, the more thinking the judge has to do. If the judge has to do too much thinking you probably HAVE NOT proved your case and there is room for improvement.
116
DIRECT EXAM TEMPLATE (Example) Questions Purpose What is your name and occupation? How long have you lived in the neighborhood? 1. Personalize the Can you tell us a little about the witness: neighborhood? Where were you on May 1st at around 9 pm? Did you notice anything strange that evening? How far away were you when you heard the smash? 2. To confirm Who did you see leaving the area? certain Could you describe the man? identification of Was there anyone else? accused. Was there a street light in the area? Do you wear glasses? Do you have any problems with your vision?
Note that in this example this witness has a very small role for the Crown The witness is only testifying to CONFIRM that he was able to identify the accused on the evening of the crime. Sometimes counsel will need to prove several purposes.
117
DIRECT EXAM TEMPLATE Questions Purpose
(see Documents - Templates)
118

3.CROSS EXAMAINATION: Cross examination is the most difficult part of a criminal trial for both lawyers and witnesses. The reason is you because you are NOT sure how the person you are talking to will respond. To take advantage of witness errors you really have to think fast. To prove your points you will have to be very clever. Cross examination is something that takes a long time to perfect. Most professional lawyers arent the best at it either. It takes a long time to develop this skill. The Purpose of Cross Examination: 1) To get the witness to say things that favor your witnesses, or your sides general story . 2) To get the witness to say things that discredit themselves, the other sides witnesses, or the other sides general story.. Although you are adverse to the witness (against the witness) it is important to remember to treat the witness with respect. Cross examinations are NOT like the ones you see on TV! Lawyers who embarrass witnesses, or are hostile towards witnesses are being unprofessional. Simply ask the witnesses questions and allow the witness to answer. It is important to be professional and dignified while doing this. If a witness is going to admit a fact that is damaging to the other side, the witness will do it because of the question you ask NOT because of the loudness or manner in which you ask the question. If the witness becomes angry or impolite, while you continue to be polite this will create a negative view of the witness by the judge. That also hurts the witness character in the eyes of the judge.
119
KNOW YOUR GOALS: The purpose of cross examination is to get the witness to give specific information, DO NOT just stand up and ask random questions. What information do you want the witness to admit. How is this going to help your case? Think about this before you start planning your questions for cross examination. For example The following is an example of case where a teenager in a gang was charged with stabbing someone. One of the witnesses, saw the crime occur but was at a distance away and there was a lot of confusion. As the cross examining lawyer you would want to emphasize the difficulty the witness may have had seeing the crime clearly. You would want the witness to raise the possibility that she could have made an error identifying the accused. Example: Defence Counsel:Mrs. Johnson you testified in your direct examination that you were across the street from where the stabbing occurred is that correct? Witness: Yes, correct. Defence Counsel: How would you describe the street, as wide or narrow? Witness: Wide I guess, it was a four lane street. Its a main street located downtown as I said. Defence Counsel: Thank you. Where there cars on the street, passing on this WIDE DOWNTOWN street during this incident? Witness: Yes of course. Its a busy street. Defence Counsel: Ok, now were you standing directly across from the crime when it occurred? In your direct exam Ill remind you, you stated you were about 25 meters down the street. Is that correct? Witness: Yes I was about 25 meters down. Defence Council: Ok to summarize your testimony Ms Johnson. You
120
identified the accused from across a busy four lane street, with your vision , at times, blocked by passing cars from further 25 meters away down the block, is that correct? Witness: Yes I guess so. Defence Council: Ms. Johnson do you wear glasses sometimes? etc...... Also during cross examination there are less rules and restrictions about leading a witness. If the witness has already testified to certain facts, then it is assumed that those facts are accepted by the witness. (Above the Defence council would be guilty of leading the witness throughout, however the witness has already testified to certain facts during direct examination. These facts can be suggested to her by the defence council in cross examination questioning). Ask you teacher for help with this if it is not clear to you.
Basic Rules of Cross Examination: Rule 1: Be Brief Rule 2: Use Simple Questions and Simple Language Rule 3: Know When to Stop Rule 4: Do not allow the witness to repeat the direct exam evidence Rule 5: Plan your Questions well Rule 6: Start Safe and Finish Strong. It is very important to remain in control as the lawyer doing the cross examination. It the witness is controlling the process you arent doing a very good job. The following 8 rules should help you control the cross examination. Rule 1: Be Brief The judge can only remember so much information. Make sure the answers you are getting from the witness lead to specific conclusions you want the judge to make. Getting minor facts out of the witness, or too much information will only confuse the judge.
121
Rule 2: Use Simple Questions and Simple Language Keeping your questions short keeps your questions focused on specific points. It also causes the witnesses answers to be focused on the specific information you are trying to get. If your statement contains too much information....expect the witness to answer: i dont understand your question. Or the judge to say please rephrase your question. Or ask one question at a time please council. Simple short questions allow you to control the witness better. The witness will not be able to avoid your questions or answer in an unspecific way. Rule 3 : Know When to Stop When you have the information you are looking for STOP. Many times asking one more question on the topic will lead the witness to give an answer that will destroy the work you have done. See the following example.... The following is an example of a witness who testifies that he saw a fight between the accused and another man. Defence Council (Cross examination): Where was the defendant and the other man when the fight started? Witness: In the middle of the field. Defence Council: Where were you? Witness: In the middle of the field Defence Council: What were you doing there? Witness: Watching birds. Defence Council: Where were the birds? Witness In the trees at the edge of the field.
122
Defence Council: So your back was to the people fighting? Witness: Yes This questioning SHOULD BE FINISHED. You have got the witness admitting that he was distracted and looking in the other direction. That he was focused on something else (not the fighting). There is no reason to continue the questioning. The witnesses testimony is now too damaged to be effective against your client. One more question could risk all of this progress....(see below) Defence Council: One more question, how can you say the defendant bit off the victims nose? You werent watching the fight. Witness: I saw him spit it out. (GAME OVER: You loose). Rule 4 : Do not allow the witness to repeat the direct exam evidence You do not begin a cross examination asking the witness for the same background information that was asked for in the direct exam. Also asking open ended questions like what happened on the evening of July 1st will often just have the witness repeat the evidence that they have given during direct examination. This IS NOT what you want to do. Letting the judge hear the witnesses story for a second time, means that the judge probably wont forget it, and will believe it more. Control your questioning, get to the points you want the witness to speak about to help your side. Rule 5 : Plan your Questions well You have a lot of time to prepare your cross examination questions. The witness does NOT have a lot of time to plan their answers. This is your major advantage as a lawyer during cross examination. Again make sure you know what information you are trying to get....and go after it with specific questions. The key however to a excellent cross examination is not to be too direct
123
with your attack that the witness is defensive. You need to be subtle, you need to be indirect in your attack plan. But do not waist a lot of time doing so. Lets look at the following example.... The following is from an assault trial where the accused (Mr. Johnsons wife) is on the stand to try and protect her husbands character. Example: Crown Council (Cross Examination: wife of the accused) - Mrs. Johnson Would you say that your husband can be a violent person? (very strong and direct attacks like this will usually always fail- see witnesses answer.) Witness (Mrs. Johnson): No, I most certainly would NOT! My husband is a wonderful loving husband and father. Now lets look at the following example as a more indirect attack: Crown Council (Cross Examination: wife of the accused) - Mrs. Johnson Mrs. Johnson you have been married to Mr. Johnson for 25 years is that correct? Witness (Mrs. Johnson) Yes that is correct Crown Council Well that is a long time. Congratulations. I suppose that you have seen both good days and difficult days in that long time period? Witness: Well of course, everyone has good and bad days. That is very normal Crown Council Yes. Well, because you know him so well it might be best to ask you what kind of situations would most likely cause Mr. Johnson to loose his temper. Etc...... (You can see that this approach is FAR more effective than the direct attack on the witness seen in the first example).
124
Rule 6 : Start Safe and Finish Strong. As a rule, in any presentation it is better to start with minor details, and then end with your major points. The judge is more likely to lose focus of the importance of information that is presented at the beginning of any presentation. Leave your BIG IMPORTANT points until nearer the end of your presentation.
125

Closing Arguments: Closing arguments are a time for you as council to ... 1) Review the theory of your case. 2) Show how facts (which came with witness testimony) support the theory of your case. 3) Remind the judge of the law and how it affects your claim of guilty or not guilty when matched with the evidence that was spoken by witnesses at trial. In our mock trial system at GLPS students are not expected to research case law, but in a real trial supporting your opinion of the law with previous judge decisions (case law) is a very important part of a lawyers job. It is very likely (and recommended) that you should be able to make an outline of your closing statement at the beginning of the trial. In fact your opening statement and conclusion statement are closely linked, they both depend on the theory of your case. The following is an outline of a good closing speech... 1. An opening.(theory of case?) 2. A statement of points of issue (what must be proven?) 3. Issue 1 a) Review points of evidence. b) Review the law related to the evidence c) Conclusion. 4. Issue 2 a) b) c) etc... (issue 3, issue 4) 5. Closing (End).
126
The above is a good roadmap for the judge to follow also....organization of your argument is VERY important. You have to be clear. You have to summarize the proof and evidence step by step. At the end of each step give a conclusion and then move on. Take the example of the lady (Mrs. Johnson) who has been accused of stealing DVDs from the local video store. Let us examine the crown closing to the case. When youre finished reading try and write a Defence closing for the same case without changing the facts listed below....
127
CLOSING STATEMENT TEMPLATE Opening (Theory of case) Points of Issue:1) 3) Issue 1: Evidence: Law: Conclusion: 2)
Issue 2: Evidence: Law: Conclusion:
Conclusion:
See Document- Templates.
128
An example of a written closing speech (in full written detail). Full written speeches are NOT allowed during the trial competition. 1. An opening. (the Crowns Theory of the case) Your honour this case has been about a straightforward case of theft. Mrs Johnson entered into Blockbuster Videos on Saturday afternoon July fourth with the purpose of stealing multiple videos, a crime she would have gotten away with if it wasnt for the alarm system secretly installed at the front door. It is very simple, she waited until she had what she thought was the perfect opportunity to steal , and at that moment she acted. 2. A statement of points of issue. There are three main points that needed to be proved here. And I am confident that we have proved them all beyond a reasonable doubt. Firstly, we had to prove it was in fact was Mrs. Johnson who committed this crime on July fourth at Block Buster video. Secondly, we had to prove that Mrs. Johnson did steal the videos or rather have them in her possession contrary to the Criminal Code. (actus rae). Third and lastly, we had to prove that it was Mrs. Johnsons intention to
steal the videos or (mens rae). 3. Issue 1 Lets turn to a review of the first issue. Was it in fact was Mrs. Johnson who committed this crime? a) Review points of evidence. There can be no doubt that it was Mrs. Johnson as we have seen during trial a police report has identified her (the accused) as the one being arrested at Blockbuster video) , and further this has been confirmed by the clerk Mr. Smith who has identified her (the accused) while testifying on the witness stand. b) Review the law related to the evidence Two eyewitness statements are enough to be sure that we indeed have the right woman. Also we note that defence council has not
129
argued against the fact that she is the woman who was arrested at the time the crime was committed. c) Conclusion. Obviously we have the right Mrs. Johnson sitting here before us. There can be no reasonable doubt about that. 4. Issue 2 The second issue is whether Mrs. Johnson did physically take the videos outside of the store without paying? (a Review points of evidence) According to the clerk and the responding police officers CCTV camera video shows Mrs. Johnson looking very nervous and running out of the store, with videos under her arm moments after the clerk answered the phone. Unfortunately this video tape was accidently erased so cannot be used as strong evidence. However it is important to note that the clerk (Mr. Smith) has testified also that Mrs. Johnson did not pay for the videos and that he saw her running out of the store after the alarm rang. When he caught her outside the videos fell out from under her arm. The fact that she was in possession of the videos is uncontested by the defence. b) Review the law related to the evidence) Taking the videos out of the store without paying for them fits the definition of theft in the Canadian criminal code. (c)Conclusion)There can be no doubt that Mrs Johnson was caught RED HANDED with property she did not pay for in the parking lot of Blockbuster video. The defence has NOT even argued against the facts. c) Conclusion. There can be no doubt raised here at trial that she did physically take the videos out of the store. 5. Issue 3 The last issue is was it Mrs. Johnsons intention to steal the videos ? a) Review points of evidence Video camera surveillance showed Mrs. Johnson appearing nervous while waiting in line. The clerk Mr. Smith testified that (and I quote) Mrs. Smith appeared to be very nervous as if there was some problem while waiting in line. That is why i began to notice her. When the clerk answered the phone she used this as an chance to jump out of line and run out of the store. Again your honour it is unfortunate that the video evidence witnessed by the police is not available to you here today. Mr Smith (the clerk) also testified that
130
when he ran outside after the woman she began instantly crying saying sorry sorry I made a mistake, please take the videos and let me go. If this testimony is believed, we have every reason to know that Mrs. Johnson did know she had taken the videos, as she expressed regret when confronted by the store clerk. b) Review the law related to the evidence Most people are aware of their actions. If Mrs. Johnson walked into the video store she must have been aware that she was there to get videos. She was also of course aware that she had to pay for them. It is interesting that she waited in line until exactly the moment that Mr Smith began to answer the phone and then literally ran out of the store. She claims not to have realized what she did, to have been distracted by a phone call, but yet when she was caught outside immediately she WAS aware of what she did. Her story in court, that she had an emergency- and needed to suddenly return home, forgetting about the videos, her actions. c) Conclusion Mrs. Johnson knew exactly what she was doing when she left the store, she knew that she was stealing the videos. 6. Closing (End). The defence has not argued against the first two points of our case, that Mrs. Johnson was the one who was at the crime scene, and that Mrs. Johnson had stolen videos in her possession. The only thing the defence has argued against is whether or not it was Mrs. Johnsons intention to steal the videos. Unfortunately it is impossible to read minds your honour, but a quick review of the evidence suggests very strongly that Mrs. Johnson knew EXACTLY what she was doing at the time the crime was committed. For these reasons we ask you to find her guilty of the offence of theft according to section 322 of the Criminal code. mental just isnt believable. All evidence points to the fact that mens rae is present in
131
OPENING (Theory of case)

-
- Straightforward case of theft Opportunity to steal, and she tries to take advantage of it. Only prevented by store security system
Points of Issue:
1) It was Mrs. Johnson who committed this crime. 2) Mrs. Johnson possessed the videos illegally. 3) Mrs. Johnson intended to steal the videos.
Issue 1:
Was it Mrs. Johnson who committed this crime
Evidence:
*Mr Smith the clerk identified her. *Police report & police
Law:
*Two eyewitness agree. *Uncontested = burden of proof met.
Conclusion:
No doubt that Mrs. Johnson is the woman correctly charged with the offence.
identification.
Issue 2:Was Mrs. Johnson in illegal possession of the videos? Evidence: *Clerk
witnesses her run out with videos. * alarm sounds. *Police testify seeing video of the same *uncontested by defence
Law:
*1 eyewitnesses *1 other indirect witness * uncontested = burden of proof met.
Conclusion:
No doubt that Mrs. Johnson was in illegal possession of the videos.
Issue 3:
Was it Mrs. Johnsons intention to steal the videos ?
Evidence: *Mrs.Johnson was noticeably

nervous in the store. * Mrs Johnson crimes times perfectly with opportunity.
Law:
*Common sense
Conclusion:
No doubt that Mrs. Johnson was aware of her actions.
*suspicious
circumstances *acknowledgement = awareness= burden of proof.
*Mrs Johnson immediately

acknowledged having committed the crime outside the store.
Conclusion:
The only REAL point of issue is: Mrs. Johnson knew what she was doing?
Hard to read minds - must instead look at what the evidence shows. The evidence clearly shows she knew. We ask for a finding of guilty!
132

RULES OF EVIDENCE: The main rules of evidence that apply to both Direct Examination and Cross Examination are 1. You cannot lead. (leading a witness toward a certain answer is NOT allowed). 2. Opinion evidence shall not be strongly considered by the judge unless given by an expert witness. 3. Hearsay evidence is inadmissible. (hearsay evidence is information which cannot be fairly be submitted to the court by the person speaking because they do not have first hand knowledge of the fact).
1. leading a witness You are NOT allowed to suggest details to your witness unless they have already been accepted as facts. As a general rule to avoid this ask questions that begin with words like WHO< WHAT WHERE< WHEN < WHY AND HOW, dont use questions that begin with the words DID or WAS/WERE when you are trying to get information. Look at the examples of Leading and Non leading questions to give you a better idea about this. Example leading: Did you see the accused outside of the bank? Example non-leading: Who did you see outside the bank? Example leading: Did you see Mr. Smith attack the defendant after he was hit? Example non-leading: What did Mr. Smith do after he was hit? Example leading: Did Mr. Smith go to the bank?
133
Example non-leading: Where did Mr. Smith go? Example leading: Did the argument occur at lunch time? Example non-leading: When did the argument occur? Example leading: Was Mr. Smith injured seriously by the attack? Example non-leading: How did Mr. Smith look after the attack? If you ask a leading question, the opposing lawyers have the opportunity to object. The judge will then rule on the objection. This is detailed below see the model dialogue. Crown Prosecutor: Mr. Smith did you see Mr. Brown in front of the bank at 3:00 pm on the afternoon of the robbery?. Defense (standing): Objection your honour! The Crown is leading the witness. Judge: sustained counsel. Please rephrase your questions or move on quickly! The judge will either rule sustained or overruled. Sustained simply means the judge agrees with your objection, overruled means the judge doesnt agree, or doesnt think it is a serious issue. There are two parts to your objection. Objections should be done carefully as too many and you will upset the judge and likely loose points for causing an unnecessary distraction. There are two parts to any objection a) notice: say I object your honour/objection b) grounds (why?) what is the problem? Leading/hearsay etc c) explain: The judge might also ask you to explain if he doesnt clearly notice the problem. 2. Opinion evidence *see rule 6
134
3. Hearsay evidence Hearsay evidence cannot be given in court. It cannot be used to damage the accuseds reputation because it is unfair. The rule means simply that if the witness did not witness a action directly they cannot talk about it. For example Mr. Smith is accused of hitting his wife Ms. Smith. Mr. Smith has been arrested and is sitting in court as the accused. The Crown prosecutor has called as a witness the Mr. Smiths neighbor Ms. Black. Ms. Black plans to testify that Ms. Smith has told her Mr. Smith hit her. This evidence is hearsay and should NOT be allowed. Ms. Blacks testimony has NO value. Her testimony is really Ms. Smiths own testimony from a different mouth. This is the reason it is not allowedthe information does not originate from Ms. Black, rather it originates from Ms Smith. Ms. Smith can testify that she was hit (because she experienced this), but unless Ms. Black also saw (or heard) the hitting, then her testimony is HEARSAY and unacceptable. Example: Crown Prosecutor: Ms. Black, please tell the court what you know about the assault on Ms. Smith Witness: (Ms. Black) : Well, she ran to my door about midnight crying and very upset. She had just been in a fight and been hit by her husband, which is a very terrible thing. Crown Prosecutor: Ms. Black, how can you be sure that she was hit? Witness: (Ms. Black) : Well she was very scared, shaking and she told me over and over again that he had hit her while she was crying! Defense (standing): Objection your honour! Hearsay !
135
Judge: Sustained counsel. The testimony from Ms. Black will be ignored! 4. Exhibits
Most visual exhibits are introduced at the start of the trial, by agreement of both parties. In our GLPS MOCK TRIAL the judge will be the one to agree on whether a planned exhibit can be used or not. Please speak to the judge about your exhibit idea at least two days before the trial begins. The judge will have to also have a meeting with the other team to introduce the exhibit to the other team so that they are prepared. All EXHIBITS HAVE TO BE pre-approved by the judge. The judge may also decide NOT to accept your exhibit, if the judge feels it is unfair, or against a principle of fairness to the accused or the other team. When making a decision about whether or not to admit evidence the judge wil make their decision based on three things... 1) RELEVANCE: Does the exhibit have good value towards proving a fact or issue of importance in the trial? 2) AUTHENTIC: It must be shown that the evidence is likely a fair representation of truth. 3) QUALIFIED: Can the exhibit be verified as authentic by a witness. Keep these elements in mind when you are arguing to the judge before trial about getting an exhibit entered into evidence. Exhibits that are agreed to before trial takes place will pre-labelled (Ex: Exhibit A, or Exhibit B) and can be called on at any time by the lawyers as they are making their presentations. Example of using an exhibit in trial: EX: Defence Lawyer: I would like to call the courts attention to Exhibit C. (Defence lawyer waits until the Bailiff brings out Exhibit C which is a enlarged photograph of a playground. Now could the witness please identify what this picture is a picture of? Witness: It is the playground where I found the dead body.
136
The DEFENCE
Preparation and Strategy Guide
Use this Guide to prepare for court as a Defence lawyer.

Contains details about and help with . 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Opening Statement Direct Examination Cross Examination Closing Statement Evidence
137
The DEFENCE
1. Opening Statement:
The Defence is heard last in a criminal trial, this allows the defence a full opportunity to listen to the case against him/her. The order of speaking is important to allow the defence the opportunity to respond fully to all elements of the case made against them, a very important consideration connected to safeguarding the rights of the accused. The purpose of the opening statement is to put both legal and factual issues in context for the judge, and opposing counsel. In other words it is a chance for you to clearly express the theory of your case. It is also a chance for you to make a good first impression on the judge (first impressions are very important!- so be well organized and well spoken). It might be helpful for you to put yourself in the judges shoes. If you were the judge what would you like to know at the start of a trial? What would help you understand the case and the evidence? One of the most important advantages the Defence has in a criminal trial is the presumption of innocence extended to his/her client. Although the judge knows this, it is often important to offer a reminder of this fundamentally important concept as it applies to the facts of the case.
Things to include in your Opening Statement A. Introduce the parties involved. B. Inform the judge of the nature of the case/Provide a theory of the case. C. State any defences that will be used to counteract the charges. D. Introduce the court to the essential facts.
138
E. Overview of witnesses and evidence. F. Outline relief sought. (recommend sentencing). G. Conclusion. A. Introduce the parties involved. It is very important for Defence counsel to personalize the accused. The person the judge sees the accused will have a very big impact on whether the judge believes the accused has committed the crime. Who is the accused? In answering this question try and build a positive picture of the man/woman who sits as the accused at trial. B. Inform the judge of the nature of the case/Provide a theory of the case. What is this trial about? In a few sentences/paragraphs explain the answer to this question. Is it a matter of a mistake in identity? Is it a matter of police error? Is it a matter of misunderstanding the accuseds actions? What is your theory of the case? Why should the man/woman who is in court today NOT be appearing as the accused to face these charges. Should it in fact be someone else sitting as the accused? Give the judge a factual context in which to consider evidence. Defence visual exhibits are often rare, but should be incorporated whenever possible. For example, if you have a prepared sketch of the crime scene this could be very helpful to help the judge visualize and understand your theory of the case, the crime itself and the evidence that follows. Also there is opportunity for you to use other documents in your opening, if your case is relying on clause of a contract, then show the judge the clause. Sometimes photographs can be valuable also to show the extent of injuries or property damage. Etc be creative. A general rule (usually for the Crown) is that the more visual the opening address
139
is, the better it is. The reason that visual exhibits are not often used by the defence is because of the standard of proof issue. The Defence DOES NOT need to prove anything, they just have to point out reasonable doubt in the Crowns theory. C. State any defences that will be used to counteract the charges. Perhaps the Defence agrees that the accused has committed a certain action, but disagrees that action is a crime. This is possible because for many actions that might be criminal in some situations may not be criminal in other situations. It depends on the circumstances of the situation. Certain criminal defences are available for many types of actions. EX: The defence of necessity; the defence of self-defence. If you are going to use one of these defences it is important to introduce the concept to the judge and explain why it can be used in this fact situation.
D. Introduce the court to the essential facts. This could be covered in Section A of the opening address, however it could be repeated here (to make very clear, or for emphasis). What facts are questionable? What dont we know? Are there any facts that suggest a problem for the Crowns ability to prove its case? (EX: The police didnt find a murder weapon.) (EX: The police have arrested several people for this crime before the accused.). (Ex: There were no eyewitnesses at the crime scene). (Ex: The accused Mr. Johnson is a priest who has never been arrested before.) Facts are different from evidence. The opening is a time for you to introduce your story and your cast of witnesses. Let the witnesses themselves explain the specific details when they appear on the witness stand (evidence). Use the opening to point the judge to particular points,
140
do not interfere too much by giving your witnesses evidence for them. If you go to far expect the judge to say something like Counsel, I would prefer to hear the evidence from your witnesses and NOT from you. A general rule is that general facts that are accepted by both sides can be mentioned as facts in the opening, and arguable points can only be spoken through witness evidence. E. Overview of witnesses and evidence. Witnesses overview: At the end of the opening statement a judge should know who you are calling as a witness and what they will be testifying about. Be careful NOT to include specific details of what the witnesses will say or findings of fact into your opening address. EX: The Crown will be calling Dr. Watson to testify. Dr. Watson has been the Chief medical examiner at Yourtown hospital for five years, and has written multiple books about the effects of poison on the human body. He will be giving his opinion about the cause of the victims death. = OK EX: The Crown will be calling Dr. Watson to testify. Dr. Watson has been the Chief medical examiner at Yourtown hospital for five years, and has written multiple books about the effects of poison on the human body. He will be testifying that the victim was most certainly NOT poisoned with arsenica chemical found by police in the accuseds home by police. = NOT OK. Evidence overview What evidence does the Defence intend to introduce? Most evidence will require some kind of witness identification to be admitted into evidence , and therefore cannot be admitted into evidence in the opening statement. (Ex: xrays proving the fact that the accused is unable to shoot a gun because of a broken hand would have to be identified by a medical doctor etc..)
141
F. Outline relief sought. (recommend sentencing). If the accused enters a plea of innocence the Defence counsel will be unable at GLPS Mock Trial to include in his speech an appeal for a lenient sentence based on circumstances. G. Conclusion. A formal conclusion is necessary for your speech. The closing should sound something like. That concludes the Defences opening address your honour. Should it please the court and your honour the crown would now like to proceed by calling our first witness Mr/Mrs____________.
142

Facts A: Defences?
Facts B: Defences?
Facts C: Defences?
General Conclusion: We ask for a finding of _____to the charges. (see Documents - Templates)
143
The DEFENCE Preparation and Strategy Guide

2. Direct Examination: In a criminal trial the Examination in Chief allows the defence opportunity to prove their case theory, remember you do not have to prove a case like the crown does. Your case theory MUST focus on establishing doubt as to whether or not your client committed the act. Because of the presumption of innocence protection for your client it is important to remember you DONT have to prove that your client DIDNT do it, you just have to raise doubt. To be successful, you have to focus on two things 3) The legal requirements of a case (burden of proof ex: mens rae/actus rae) were not proved sufficiently by the Crown. 4) Persuasive elements. (ex: Mr. Johnson ISNT a dangerous man he certainly DOESNT have a bad temper). To prove these things you are going to have to submit evidence. Usually most of this evidence will come from witness testimony. The main problem most attorneys have is to present evidence in a way that is clear and convincing to the judge. Often attorneys ask too many questions, and receive too many answers. This means the important evidence gets lost. In preparing your questions for witnesses try and ask yourself. What is this case all about? The answer tells you what details ARE important and what details are NOT important. When preparing for the trial you will come across A LOT of evidence, dont try and use it all. A good attorney is an expert at separating important convincing facts, from unnecessary facts. An effective Examination in Chief depends on your witnesses presentation of the evidence. This section focuses on how prepare Defence witnesses to present evidence at trial.
144
B. Witness Preparation Before any trial a lot of time is spent between defence attorneys and their witnesses to prepare the giving of evidence. These rehearsals happen before all criminal trials in real court rooms. This is NOT dishonest if done properly. Attorneys practice HOW the evidence is given NOT WHAT evidence is given. Encouraging witnesses to change WHAT facts they will testify to is illegal. Remember, in our mock trial system witnesses MUST stick to the facts sheets included in the case materials, changing any facts will result in a major team penalty from the judge. In real life lawyers and witnesses could face perjury/obstruction of justice charges, resulting in a ban from appearing in court again, or go to jail. It is also important to prepare your witnesses for issues that will likely come up during cross examination.
As you prepare your plan for Direct Examination these are some basic rules to keep in mind. BASIC RULES FOR DIRECT EXAMINATION Rule 1: The witness testifies (provides the details of the information) NOT counsel. Rule 2: Counsel should decide the order in which evidence is given through questioning. Rule 3: Personalize the Witness Rule 4: Ask simple questions using simple language. Rule 5: One question at a time. Rule 6: Focus on getting facts, not just opinions. Rule 7: Make sure the judge can easily understand the point you are making. Rule 8: Be as brief as possible.
145
Rule 1: The witness testifies (provides the details of the information) NOT counsel.
Witnesses will be believed and remembered well by judges because of the way they testifyNOT because of the brilliant questions the attorney asks them. The spotlight needs to stay on the witness, and the information the witness is giving. Let your witness tell the story. Also it is necessary for you to follow the rules of evidence carefully (* see rules of evidence later in this chapter). Lawyers are NOT supposed to dominate the Direct Exam, they ARE supposed to dominate the Cross Examination. Rule 2: Counsel should decide the order in which evidence is given through questioning. You need to control witness testimony throughout the process. It is very important to get the witnesses information spoken in the correct, organized order. Step by step. It is best to make an outline of what issues you want to the witness to explain , and then write questions on each of those outline points. This is the best way of making sure the witness tells the complete story. Think carefully about what is the clearest way to tell the story? and what is least confusing way to tell the witnesses story to the judge?. It is also very common for lawyers to use guide posts, in the lawyers question. For example.. Q: Mr. White you have told us about your car accident in which you were injured, now let us talk about those injuries in more detail. This kind of guide posting technique can make your presentation clearer both for the judge and for your witness.
146
Rule 3: Personalize the Witness This is especially important for the defence attorney. For the witnesses testimony to be effective, you have to show that the witness is a person to be trusted. Background information can be helpful for the judge to hear. If the witness is a doctor, talk about his experience and expertise. If the witness is a police officer introduce their work record. If the witness is accused of dishonesty introduce their contribution to society etc If your client is accused of a serious crime, , stand close to him while he is in the witness box, treat him in a friendly manner so that the judge will see you are not scared or nervous around him. Rule 4: Ask simple questions using simple language. At GLPS, our mock trial situation is an English learning program. It is therefore even more important to use simple language so that you can be easily understood by the witness. The witness is NOT allowed to use paper or a script when answering questions. Keeping the questions simple also will help the judge follow your presentation. It will also help you make sure your questions have a clear purpose. Rule 5: One question at a time. Sometimes lawyers are too anxious to get to the point. Combining multiple ideas into one question confuses the witness and the judge often misses the point. Example (INCORRECT) Q: Did you notice her doing anything unusual, or did you notice that there was a difference in her mood? It is MUCH better to separate these questions into two, and allow your witness to answer each of them separately. This way the witness wont leave out any important details.
147
Example (CORRECT) Did you notice her doing anything unusual? (Witness answers) Did you notice that there was a difference in her mood? (witness answers).
Rule 6: Focus on getting facts, not just opinions. The opinions of expert witnesses (for example doctors) ARE important and valuable. However if your witness is not an expert (most are not) then that persons opinion is NOT valuable. The witness is there to testify to facts that they observed, that is all. Of course the witnesses have opinions about what happened, but that is because they witnessed facts which caused them to develop these opinions. The judge is interested in these facts so that the judge may form his own opinion. EX: The witness is of the opinion that the accused hated the victim. This is NOT IMPORTANT. However facts that led to that opinion are VERY IMPORTANT. What bad things did the accused say about the victim? Did the witness see the accused arguing with the victim? Rule 7: Make sure the judge can easily understand the point you are making. Do NOT rush through the witness testimony. You have practiced with the witness, and probably know what the witness will say. However this is the first time the judge is hearing the evidence or meeting the witness. There is nothing more common than beginner lawyers going too fast. There is of course a time limit, but a few of the following tips might help you solve this common problem E) Pause after the witness answers. (question, answer, pause). F) Slow down your witness, clarify points...it is perfectly ok for you to interrupt your witness especially if you think the judge is missing your point. (Remind the witness out loud to slow down).
148
EX: Sir let me stop you for a second, lets try and make sure everyone understands this clearly. (You might also remind a witness to speak up please). G) GO BACK. If the witness misses an important detail, go back after the answer and ask a further question about the information that was missed. H) Watch the judge. If the judge is confused you should be able to notice by looking at the judges face. Rule 8: Be as brief as possible. The more organized and prepared your presentation is, the lass questions you will have to ask to prove your point. This is ALWAYS true. The more you talk, the more thinking the judge has to do. If the judge has to do too much thinking you probably HAVE NOT proved your case and there is room for improvement.
149
DIRECT EXAM TEMPLATE (Example) Questions Purpose What is your name and occupation? How long have you lived in the neighborhood? 1. Personalize the Can you tell us a little about the witness: neighborhood? You mentioned there were several people on the street when you heard the noise, how can you be sure it was the accused who broke the 2.To add doubt glass? about the witnesss How far away were you when you heard the identification of smash? the accused. Who did you see leaving the area? Was there a street light in the area? Do you wear glasses? Do you have any problems with your vision?
(see Documents- Templates)
150
151
The DEFENCE
3.CROSS EXAMAINATION:
Cross examination is the most difficult part of a criminal trial for both lawyers and witnesses. The reason is you because you are NOT sure how the person you are talking to will respond. To take advantage of witness errors you really have to think fast. To prove your points you will have to be very clever. Cross examination is something that takes a long time to perfect. Most professional lawyers arent the best at it either. It takes a long time to develop this skill. The Purpose of Cross Examination: 1) To get the witness to say things that favor your witnesses, or your sides general story . 2) To get the witness to say things that discredit themselves, the other sides witnesses, or the other sides general story.. Although you are adverse to the witness (against the witness) it is important to remember to treat the witness with respect. Cross examinations are NOT like the ones you see on TV! Lawyers who embarrass witnesses, or are hostile towards witnesses are being unprofessional. Simply ask the witnesses questions and allow the witness to answer. It is important to be professional and dignified while doing this. If a witness is going to admit a fact that is damaging to the other side, the witness will do it because of the question you ask NOT because of the loudness or manner in which you ask the question. If the witness becomes angry or impolite, while you continue to be polite this will create a negative view of the witness by the judge. That also hurts the witness character in the eyes of the judge.
152
KNOW YOUR GOALS: The purpose of cross examination is to get the witness to give specific information, DO NOT just stand up and ask random questions. What information do you want the witness to admit. How is this going to help your case? Think about this before you start planning your questions for cross examination. For example The following is an example of case where a teenager in a gang was charged with stabbing someone. One of the witnesses, saw the crime occur but was at a distance away and there was a lot of confusion. As the cross examining lawyer you would want to emphasize the difficulty the witness may have had seeing the crime clearly. You would want the witness to raise the possibility that she could have made an error identifying the accused. Example: Defence Counsel:Mrs. Johnson you testified in your direct examination that you were across the street from where the stabbing occurred is that correct? Witness: Yes, correct. Defence Counsel: How would you describe the street, as wide or narrow? Witness: Wide I guess, it was a four lane street. Its a main street located downtown as I said. Defence Counsel: Thank you. Where there cars on the street, passing on this WIDE DOWNTOWN street during this incident? Witness: Yes of course. Its a busy street. Defence Counsel: Ok, now were you standing directly across from the crime when it occurred? In your direct exam Ill remind you, you stated you were about 25 meters down the street. Is that correct? Witness: Yes I was about 25 m down. Defence Council: Ok to summarize your testimony Ms Johnson. You
153
identified the accused from across a busy four lane street, with your vision , at times, blocked by passing cars from further 25 meters away down the block, is that correct? Witness: Yes I guess so. Defence Council: Ms. Johnson do you wear glasses sometimes? etc...... Also during cross examination there are less rules and restrictions about leading a witness. If the witness has already testified to certain facts, then it is assumed that those facts are accepted by the witness. (Above the Defence council would be guilty of leading the witness throughout, however the witness has already testified to certain facts during direct examination. These facts can be suggested to her by the defence council in cross examination questioning). Ask you teacher for help with this if it is not clear to you.
Basic Rules of Cross Examination: Rule 1: Be Brief Rule 2: Use Simple Questions and Simple Language Rule 3: Use Leading Questions Rule Rule Rule Rule 4: 5: 6: 7: Know When to Stop Do not allow the witness to repeat the direct exam evidence Plan your Questions well Start Safe and Finish Strong.
It is very important to remain in control as the lawyer doing the cross examination. It the witness is controlling the process you arent doing a very good job. The following 8 rules should help you control the cross examination. Rule 1: Be Brief The judge can only remember so much information. Make sure the answers you are getting from the witness lead to specific conclusions you want the judge to make. Getting minor facts out of the witness, or too much information will only confuse the judge.
154
Rule 2: Use Simple Questions and Simple Language Keeping your questions short keeps your questions focused on specific points. It also causes the witnesses answers to be focused on the specific information you are trying to get. If your statement contains too much information....expect the witness to answer: I dont understand your question. Or the judge to say please rephrase your question. Or ask one question at a time please council. Simple short questions allow you to control the witness better. The witness will not be able to avoid your questions or answer in an unspecific way. Rule 3: Use Leading Questions Again if a fact has been established earlier in trial through withness testimony you can assume it is fact. You can then suggest these facts to the witness without getting the witness to confirm each fact. The witness will probably confirm many things they feel are facts during direct examination. Even if facts havent been testified to the judge is more likely to allow leading questions if the witness isnt the accused. The accused is being protected during trial, the other witnesses do not share the need for the same protection. Example Drunk Driving case. Mr. Johnson is accused of drunk driving. EX: Crown Council (cross examination of the accused): The reason you gave your car keys to your friend is that because you were too drunk to drive is that not true Mr. Johnson. This leading question is NOT going to be allowed by the judge. Because it suggests the guilt of Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnsons presumption of innocence MUST be protected.
But consider this situation (where leading questions would be ok)...
155
Defence Council (cross examination- of bartender, a witness for the crown): You were serving Mr. Johnson beer that evening , and you have testified that Mr. Johnson became drunk...is that correct? Witness (bartender) Correct Defence Council Were you not also drinking with Mr. Johnson at the bar, during your work service? Witness (bartender) Correct Defence Council Wasnt your judgment affected by the alcohol you consumed? How is it possible for you to properly judge Mr Johnsons condition? Rule 4: Know When to Stop When you have the information you are looking for STOP. Many times asking one more question on the topic will lead the witness to give an answer that will destroy the work you have done. See the following example.... The following is an example of a witness who testifies that he saw a fight between the accused and another man. Defence Council (Cross examination): Where was the defendant and the other man when the fight started? Witness: In the middle of the field. Defence Council: Where were you? Witness: In the middle of the field Defence Council: What were you doing there? Witness: Watching birds. Defence Council: Where were the birds? Witness In the trees at the edge of the field.
156
Defence Council: So your back was to the people fighting? Witness: Yes This questioning SHOULD BE FINISHED. You have got the witness admitting that he was distracted and looking in the other direction. That he was focused on something else (not the fighting). There is no reason to continue the questioning. The witnesses testimony is now too damaged to be effective against your client. One more question could risk all of this progress....(see below) Defence Council: One more question, how can you say the defendant bit off the victims nose? You werent watching the fight. Witness: I saw him spit it out. (GAME OVER: You loose). Rule 5: Do not allow the witness to repeat the direct exam evidence You do not begin a cross examination asking the witness for the same background information that was asked for in the direct exam. Also asking open ended questions like what happened on the evening of July 1st will often just have the witness repeat the evidence that they have given during direct examination. This IS NOT what you want to do. Letting the judge hear the witnesses story for a second time, means that the judge probably wont forget it, and will believe it more. Control your questioning, get to the points you want the witness to speak about to help your side. Rule 6: Plan your Questions well You have a lot of time to prepare your cross examination questions. The witness does NOT have a lot of time to plan their answers. This is your major advantage as a lawyer during cross examination. Again make sure you know what information you are trying to get....and go after it with specific questions.
157
The key however to a excellent cross examination is not to be too direct with your attack that the witness is defensive. You need to be subtle, you need to be indirect in your attack plan. But do not waist a lot of time doing so. Lets look at the following example.... The following is from an assault trial where the accused (Mr. Johnson) s wife is on the stand to try and protect her husbands character. Example: Crown Council (Cross Examination: wife of the accused) - Mrs. Johnson Would you say that your husband can be a violent person. (very strong and direct attacks like this will usually always fail- see witnesses answer.) Witness (Mrs. Johnson): No , I most certainly would NOT! My husband is a wonderful loving husband and father. Now lets look at the following example as a more indirect attack: Crown Council (Cross Examination: wife of the accused) - Mrs. Johnson Mrs. Johnson you have been married to Mr. Johnson for 25 years is that correct? Witness (Mrs Johnson) Yes that is correct Crown Council Well that is a long time. Congratulations. I suppose that you have seen both good days and difficult days in that long time period? Witness: Well of course, everyone has good and bad days. That is very normal Crown Council Yes. Well, because you know him so well it might be best to ask you what kind of situations would most likely cause Mr. Johnson to loose his temper. Etc...... (You can see that this approach is FAR more effective than the direct attack on the witness seen in the first example).
158
Rule 7: Start Safe and Finish Strong. As a rule, in any presentation it is better to start with minor details, and then end with your major points. The judge is more likely to lose focus of the importance of information that is presented at the beginning of any presentation. Leave your BIG IMPORTANT points until nearer the end of your presentation.
159
The Defence Preparation and Strategy Guide

4.Closing Arguments: Closing arguments are a time for you as council to ... 1) Review the theory of your case. 2) Show how facts (which came with witness testimony) support the theory of your case. 3) Remind the judge of the law and how it affects your claim of not guilty when matched with the evidence that was spoken by witnesses at trial. 4) ALWAYS remind the judge of the importance of the PREUMPTION of INNOCENCE standard. In our mock trial system at GLPS students are not expected to research case law, but in a real trial supporting your opinion of the law with previous judge decisions (case law) is a very important part of a lawyers job. It is very likely (and recommended) that you should be able to make an outline of your closing statement at the beginning of the trial. In fact your opening statement and conclusion statement are closely linked, they both depend on the theory of your case. The following is an outline of a good closing speech... 6. An opening. (theory of case?) 7. A statement of points of issue (what must be proven?) 8. Issue 1 A) Review points of evidence. B) Review the law related to the evidence C) Conclusion. 9. Issue 2 (A) B) C) etc... (issue 3, issue 4) 10.End closing.
160
The above is a good roadmap for the judge to follow also....organization of your argument is VERY important. You have to be clear. You have to summarize the proof and evidence step by step. At the end of each step give a conclusion and then move on. Take the example of the lady (Mrs. Johnson) who has been accused of stealing DVDs from the local video store. Let us examine a crown closing to the case. When youre finished reading try and write a Defence closing for the same case without changing the facts listed below....
For an example of a written closing speech (in full written detail). See The Crown Strategy Guide
161
CONCLUSION SPEAKER TEMPLATE Opening (Theory of case) Points of Issue:1) 3) Issue 1: Evidence: Law: Conclusion: 2)
Presumption of Innocence
Conclusion:
See Document- Templates.
162
CONCLUSION (Theory of case)

-
- Straightforward case of theft
Opportunity to steal, and she tries to take advantage of it. Only prevented by store security system
Points of Issue:
1) Mrs. Johnson intended to steal the videos.
Issue 1:
Evidence:
*uncontested by defence
Law:
Conclusion:
We Accept this fact, but more is needed to prove guilt.
Issue 2:Was Mrs. Johnson in illegal possession of the videos? Evidence:

Law:
Conclusion:
Issue 3:
Evidence:
*Mrs. Johnson was in a stressful situation. (Mrs. Johnson +
Law:
*Common sense
Conclusion: Evidence and Mrs. Johnsons explanation of the situation have created a reasonable doubt that she was aware of her actions when she exited the store.
Debbie Chois testimony) * Mrs Johnsons instinct
overcame her and she lost focus. (Mrs. Johnsons testimony).. * There is some basis to believe Donny reaction. testimony). * Danny has a history of practical jokes (teachers comments on caused his mothers witness
(various
report Card : exhibit B)
Conclusion: Mrs. Johnson is respected member of the community, a loving mother and has no prior criminal record. Mrs. Johnson was distracted by what she thought was a family crisis. The evidence clearly shows there was reasonable doubt. We asked for finding of not guilty.
163
The Witness Preparation and Strategy Guide
Use this Guide to prepare for court as a Witness.

Contains details about and help with . Objectives of witness Witness behavior and character Witness Procedures Handling Questions
164
Overview and Key Points: Witnesses have a difficult job. If you look at the scoring sheet the judge will be using for our Mock Trial, you will see that the most points are awarded for representing the character you are assigned to the best of your ability. An accurate representation of character is what will most help your team win the mock trial competition. Obviously the witness (crown or defence) also has some interest in seeing their team win the case. It is important to remember that your assistance in winning the case is limited to the character you are playing as the character is described in the witness fact sheet and character overview. You need to make sure that you KNOW THESE DETAILS perfectly. If you give information during the trial that does not match the information listed for your character under the case materials, it is very likely that you will loose the competition for your team, if the error is serious. The judge will certainly deduct a lot of points. Information in the case material section is written to be perfectly balanced between both teams (the Crown and the Defence). It is true sometimes a witness will feel like they are very limited in the help they can give their team (because the witness fact sheet prevents them from helping very much), in this situation try and earn as many points for your team as you can by playing the role of the witness well. As a witness that is always the easiest way to earn points, and it is an important part of any mock trial experience. If your character is a policeman, act like one. If your character is an old lady, act like one. If your character thinks they are from outer space due to a medical condition, act like it.
165
A. Witness is called to the stand. After the opening statement is made by your team, the next step is for your teams lawyers to call witnesses. The order of the witnesses should be set by your team ahead of time, but can be changed for if your team decides to do so. The lawyer will call you by your characters name. When you hear your name called simply stand up, and walk to the witness box. Your performance will be scored from this second onward by the judge. The first part of your performance as a witness is your swearing in. You will be asked by the bailiff to raise your right hand and administer an oath. You can choose between two types of oath. Simply choose between the two by saying to the bailiff Solemn Affirmation or Religious Affirmation. (see court room procedures guide for further details about this). Direct Examination Your teams lawyer will next begin the Direct Examination , this should be fairly easy for you, because you should have already practiced the questions and the answers with your team. Focus on staying in character and score as many points as you can here for your character performance. While answering any questions however it is important to remember to stick to the acts in the witness fact sheets. If the lawyer asks you a question that is NOT in the witness fact sheet, you can create an answer, as long as it isnt considered unreasonable by the judge. Cross Examination For a witness this is the hardest part of your speaking role. You should have planned a little bit, trying to prepare what questions the other team will likely ask you, but certainly some questions will come as a
166
surprise. It is important to answer the questions as honestly as possible saying I dont know/ or/ I dont remember if the information is in your witness fact sheet is COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE. It will cause very large points deductions by the judge. Even if your truthful answer hurts your team, your team will not suffer a large point loss if you stay in character and follow your witness role. It is when students leave their role to try and benefit their teams case that is when their teams score really starts to go down quickly. It is important for a witness to try and keep answers short during cross examination. Let the other teams lawyer do the work, dont help them too much by giving long informative answers. It is also important to remember to be polite at all times. A witness that shows themselves to be angry will probably loose the trust and respect of the judge. Remember the judge is holding your score card. Objections: During your testimony your speaking may be suddenly interrupted by the other teams lawyer. This is called voicing an objection. The other teams lawyer may feel that your answer (or more likely the question you are answering) is unfair. If so, the lawyer will stand and say objection. The lawyer will explain to the judge what kind of problem they think there is (usually they will complain about leading or opinion or hearsay problems). When you hear an objection you must stop speaking , and wait for the judge to make a ruling on the objection. If the judge rules sustained that means the judge agrees there is a problem and you should stop your answer and wait for a new question. If the judge rules overruled that means the judge doesnt agree that there is a problem and you should continue to answer the question.
Dismissing the Witness: Wait in your seat on the stand until the judge says witness is dismissed.
167
Junior Law Library

All materials specifically designed to help students prepare for GLPS.
Legal Dictionary
Case Specific Criminal Code (Partially Annotated) Charter of Rights and Freedoms Trial Preparation Hints The GLPSLAW JOURNAL Training Videos Speaking Templates
168
-Cases
the Accused: (Noun) Is the person who is suspected by police of having committed a crime. The police more than suspect the person and some evidence exists of the persons guilt. This evidence allows the accused to be charged the person (a complaint has been filed in a courthouse about the person). Now there will be a hearing about the persons connection to the crime (a trial). to Adjourn: (Verb) to end or pause for a break in a trial. Admissible (Adjective) Admit (verb): If evidence is proper (allowed according to the rules of law and the courtroom) the judge will accept it and consider it. The evidence is considered admissible. Arraignment: (Noun) This is read by the bailiff at the beginning of the trial. It is a summary of the criminal complaint about the accused. It contains information about
169
what the accused is charged with. Attorney: (Noun) Also known as a lawyer. An attorneys job is to argue a position in front of a judge. The Bailiff: (Noun) The bailiff is a person who acts as the judges assistant during trial. He is responsible for court security. Beyond a Reasonable Doubt: (Legal Concept) If a person is found guilty at trial, that person will probably be punished. Punishing a person (for example by sending them to jail) can have very serious effects on that persons life. For this reason there is a need to be certain the person is guilty. Usually it is impossible to be 100% certain (unless the crime was videotaped). The crown cannot be expected to prove the guilt of the accused with 100% certainty. The crown however DOES HAVE TO prove that the person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This means that there can NOT be one strong element of doubt in the mind of the judge that the person is guilty. If even one element of doubt remains in the mind of the judge (or jury), even if the judge is certain about everything else, the judge CANNOT find the accused guilty. The concept of beyond a reasonable doubt is the burden of proof the Crown must meet for a guilty verdict. (see the mini-GLPS annotated criminal code for examples). (*see also reasonable doubt) Calling to Order: (Legal Phrase) At the beginning of trial, or after a break the bailiff will notify everyone that the trial will start (or restart). The bailiff will usually tell everyone to stand up to show respect to the judge as the judge enters the room. Case Law (Noun): Judges use the opinion of other judges to help them form their own opinions. When something has been decided by another judge, usually it is followed by all judges. When a case a judge has decided affects future judges decisions we call that decision case law, because the decision becomes a rule, like a law. Contempt: (Noun): A person who shows disrespect for the court, the judge or the rules of court is guilty of his crime. It is usually punished by a short jail sentence.
170
Conviction: (Noun) Convict (Verb): To convict someone is to decide they are guilty in a court of law. Cross Examination: (Legal Phrase) A lawyer asks questions to the other teams witness. This is usually NOT a friendly examination. Crown Attorney: (Noun) A crown attorney represents the Queen in common law commonwealth countries like Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc.. Their job is to punish people who do NOT follow the Queens laws ( the Criminal law). Custody: (Noun) When a person is suspected or convicted of a crime they may
temporarily loose their freedom. The person no longer has control of themselves, the control is transferred to the Queen. Usually the person in custody is in jail. Defence Attorney: (Noun) This persons job is to represent the accused and defend them in court. The Defence attorney will try to prevent a guilty verdict. Disposition: (Noun) a statement usually written and read by the judge at the end of the trial. It is a summary of the judges opinion, thinking and verdict. to Enter into evidence: (verb) The action of getting the judges agreement to consider a piece of physical evidence. Evidence: (Noun) Something that makes the judge (or jury) believe that the accused is innocent or guilty. There are different kinds of evidence 1) Witness testimony (something a witness says) 2) Exhibits (physical evidence) for example a picture, a map, a weapon. Examination in Chief: (Legal Phrase) A lawyer asks questions to their own witness. This is usually a friendly examination.
171
Hearsay: (Noun) A evidence rule that says a person can only report what they
witnessed themselves. Talking about other peoples feelings or experiences is NOT allowed.
Innocent Until Proven Guilty: (Legal Concept) In Canada this is the legal right of all persons in common law (unwritten law) and also according to section 11 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This concept allows citizens to remain free at all times unless they are convicted of a crime. It is a protection against government interference in the private lives of citizens. Internationally it is considered a natural right (or a basic human right). Judge: (Noun) The judge is an expert in law who listens to the presentations of the Crown and the defence attorney during trial. The judge considered the arguments of both attorneys and then applies the law to the situation to determine innocence or guilt of the accused. The judge also is responsible for punishment (* see sentencing), and is responsible for upholding the rules of the courtroom. Your Honour (Legal Phrase): A title given to a judge, to show respect for their position. Lawyers in court do not speak a judges name, they refer to him by this title.
172
Leading a Witness: (legal Phrase) When a lawyer errors by suggesting an answer to a witness. This is NOT allowed by courtroom rules of evidence. Oath: (Noun) This is a promise made by a witness to tell the truth while they speak in court. The promise can be made to God or in the witnesss own honour. Objections: (Noun) to Object (verb) When an attorney feels a rule of the courtroom is being broken the attorney may decide to object. This means the attorney will complain to the judge. There are several kinds of objections. Overruled : (Adjective) When the judge DISAGREES with a lawyers objection Plea: (Noun) to Plead (verb) At the beginning of the trial the accused will claim to be innocent or guilty. Pre-Trial Hearing : (Legal Phrase) This is when the judge meets with the lawyers on both sides before the trial begins. The judge makes decisions (rulings) about what evidence can be admitted at trial, answer questions or solve problems.
173
Reasonable Doubt: (Legal Concept) Is a burden of proof used for criminal trials. For civil trials a lesser burden (probability) is used. It means if doubt still affects a reasonable persons belief in the guilt of the accused after all presentations have finished at trial, the accused CANNOT be found guilty. A reasonable doubt cannot be based on sympathy; it must be based on reason and consideration of the evidence, or lack of evidence. This burden of proof is stronger than probability and weaker than certainty. Religious Affirmation (Legal Phrase): A witness promises to tell the truth and the promise is made in the presence of Gods judgment. Ruling: (Noun) to Rule (verb) A decision made by a judge in court. Solemn Affirmation (Legal Phrase): A witness promises to tell the truth and the promise is made on his/her own honour. Sustained (Adjective): When the judge agrees with a lawyers objection. Testimony: (Noun) Testify (verb) Something a witness says while the judge is listening to them. To be Sworn In: (legal Phrase) Before a witness speaks the bailiff makes the witness swear to tell the truth. (*see oath)
174
Witnesses: (Noun) A witness is a person who has something to say about the crime the accused is suspected about. The witness either saw or heard the crime, or the witness has some direct reason to believe the accused DID or DID NOT commit the crime. Witnesses can also be experts like medical doctors who will give their expert opinion about their area of expertise. Witness Box: (Noun) The place where a witness sits and speaks during the trial. Verdict: (Noun) The decision made by the judge at the end of the trial. Innocent or guilty.
175
TEMPLATES OPENING STATEMENT TEMPLATE (Example)

Theory of Case: Your honour, this case is about. Cause of Action: The accused has been charged according to CC section 322 (ex) Element A: Who Committed the crime? Facts A: Element B: Physical possession Facts B: Element C: Mental Intention Facts C: The accused has a
The accused was identified The stolen property was the crime scene CCTV in the area.
by a witness running from found at a second hand previous criminal record for store beside the accuseds theft when he was young. The victim had cuts on his The accused does NOT hand, and has a blood type have a job and has money that matches blood found problems. on broken window at crime scene. Witness & Evidence A Bystander: break and leaving shop. Hears sees Witness & Evidence B Report: Witness & Evidence C window Police Jewelry (Expert type and Recovered Accused has NOT had a job. landlordsaying that the Witness): accused is often late for cut rent. show Conclusion C Burden of proof met. The accused was seen on house.
accused stolen property from Ricks Statement from accuseds
CCTV TAPE: Review of CCTV Doctor camera, identifies accused in Blood area at time of crime. Conclusion A: Burden of proof met.
matching comments likelihood of match. Conclusion B Burden of proof met.
General Conclusion: We ask for a finding of guilt to the charges.
176

Facts A:
Facts B:
Facts C:
General Conclusion: We ask for a finding of _____to the charges.
177
DIRECT EXAM TEMPLATE (Example) Questions Purpose What is your name and occupation? How long have you lived in the neighborhood? 1. Personalize the Can you tell us a little about the witness: neighborhood? Where were you on May 1st at around 9 pm? Did you notice anything strange that evening? How far away were you when you heard the smash? 2. To confirm Who did you see leaving the area? certain Could you describe the man? identification of Was there anyone else? accused. Was there a street light in the area? Do you wear glasses? Do you have any problems with your vision?
178
179
CROSS EXAM TEMPLATE (Example) Questions Purpose What is your name and occupation? How long have you lived in the neighborhood? 1. Personalize the Can you tell us a little about the witness: neighborhood? Where were you on May 1st at around 9 pm? Did you notice anything strange that evening? How far away were you when you heard the smash? 2. To confirm Who did you see leaving the area? certain Could you describe the man? identification of Was there anyone else? accused. Was there a street light in the area? Do you wear glasses? Do you have any problems with your vision?
180
CROSS EXAM TEMPLATE Questions Purpose
181
Conclusion Template (Theory of case)

- Straightforward case of theft Opportunity to steal, and she tries to take advantage of it. Only prevented by store security system
Points of Issue:
1) Mrs. Johnson intended to steal the videos.
Issue 1:
Evidence:
Law:
Conclusion:
Issue 2:Was Mrs. Johnson in illegal possession of the videos? Evidence:

Law:
Conclusion:
Issue 3:
Evidence:
*Mrs. Johnson was in a stressful situation. (Mrs. Johnson +
Law:
*Common sense
Conclusion: Evidence and Mrs. Johnsons explanation of the situation have created a reasonable doubt that she was aware of her actions when she exited the store.
Debbie Chois testimony) * Mrs Johnsons instinct
overcame her and she lost focus. (Mrs. Johnsons testimony).. * There is some basis to believe Donny reaction. testimony). * Danny has a history of practical jokes (teachers comments on caused his mothers witness
(various
report Card : exhibit B)
Conclusion:
Mrs. Johnson is respected member of the community, a loving mother and has no
prior criminal record. Mrs. Johnson was distracted by what she thought was a family crisis. The evidence clearly shows there was reasonable doubt. We asked for a finding of not guilty.
182
GLPS Mock Trial Tournament Time Chart: 1. Call to order, read charge, enter plea, intro of teams 2. Crown opening statement 3. Crown Witness A Direct Exam Cross Exam 4. Crown Witness B Direct Exam Cross Exam 5. Defence- Opening Statement 6. Defence Witness A Direct Exam Cross Exam 7. Defence Witness B Direct Exam Cross Exam 8 Defence Closing Statement 9. Crown Closing Statement 10. Short Recess/ Judge Deliberation 11. Judge Verdict and Disposition Total allotted time 10 minutes 70-80minutes 3 minutes 5minutes
5 minutes 5 minutes
5 minutes 5 minutes 5 minutes
5 minutes 5 minutes
5 minutes 5 minutes. 5 minutes 5 minutes
183
SCORESHEET (JUDGES) CROWN Team LAWYERS Opening Statement: The lawyer provided a clear, concise and effective description of his/her side of the case. Direct Examination, lawyers utilized questions which required straightforward answers and brought out key information for their side of the case. Cross Examination, lawyers were able to bring out contradictions in testimony and weaken the other sides case. Throughout the questioning of witnesses lawyers utilized properly worded questions and exhibited a clear understanding of trial procedure. Closing Statement, the la wyer made an organized and well reasoned presentation summarizing the most important points for his/her teams side of the case and the main weaknesses of the other teams case. WITNESSES: Witnesses/the Accused were believable in their characterizations, convincing in their testimony and did NOT unfairly deviate from their fact sheets. Witnesses/accused were well prepared for answering the questions posed to them under direct examination Witnesses/accused responded well to the questions posed to them under cross examination. TEAM Team members were courteous, followed courtroom rules and spoke clearly and distinctly Team members kept their presentations within the expected time ranges. TOTAL SCORE FOR TEAMS (Total 50 points) Point Details: 1-Poor, 2-Fair,3-Good,4-Very Good, 5-Excellent DEFENCE Team
184

New Minjok 2012 Summer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

New Minjok 2012 Summer

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

New Minjok 2012 Summer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Earl Blaney Wade Humphrey

*Refer to law journal week 1

Witness Fact Sheets

Police Statement Form:

Location: Yourtown Police Station

Witness Fact Sheets

Report written by -Officer Jeremy 3:15pm. May 01, 2011

Witness Fact Sheets

Witness Fact Sheets

Report written by -Officer Jeremy 3:45pm. May 01, 2011

Witness Fact Sheets

GLPS Mock Trial

*Refer to law journal week 2 and law lectures

October 2011 Interviewee: Station Interviewer: Jeremy

01, Mrs. Ivy Officer Location: Yourtown Police Mike

A= Excellent, B= Good, C= Satisfactory, D=Needs Improvement, F= Fail

STUDENT: PAUL IVY (12 years old)

School Absences: 09 Subject: BMath

Report Subjects: Ms. Ivy,

household. October 15 , 2011 Report by. Mr. B. Well.

Parenting Techniques (0-10) basis (0-10)

2.Ability to Control Children on a daily 3.Condition of home upon

visit (order) (0-10)

due to noticeable bruises on

to be removed from the home Paul from the Ivy home

it is recommended that police immediately remove the boy and

place him in foster care for an indeterminate period of time.

seriousness and frequency of use of an

the abuse falls outside a

object for beatings has also been reported by the victim.

Ability to Control Children on a daily

Condition of home upon

visit (order) (0-10)

This category reflects the homes cleanliness and

Financial stability in home (0-10)

This category reflects any

Emotional stability of children in home. (0-10)

This category measures the childs emotional well being.

Concern or Support raised by others in contact (0-10)

Affected childs opinion. (0-10)

This category suitability.

Parents response to investigation (0-10)

Supporting parents influence (0-10)

This category measures positive manner.

Adherence to Community standards (0-10)

*Refer to law lecture

Witness Fact Sheets

The Accused: The Great Kamala

Witness Fact Sheets

Witness Fact Sheets

Witness Fact Sheets

Witness Fact Sheets

Published in Any mans Survival Maps 2011

Witness Fact Sheets

Witness Fact Sheets

Witness Fact Sheets

Witness Fact Sheets

The Making of a Criminal