Ridiculous Quotes 09-10

[The Narrator]

This weekend at the Milwaukee Regional:
During the CX of Alex Grace
CA: You made a comment about Hurricane Katrina
DA: Objection Relevance
Judge: Counsel why is this relevant?
CA: Its going to show that Alex Grace made a comment about Hurricane Katrina and it made her look bad... I'm trying to show... uh... It's going to show Alex Grace's fall from Grace
Judge: Overruled

Did DA at least try to get the substance of the comment out as prejudicial (just to get CA to rephrase)?

[Quotequeen]

One attorney stood up and made an objection for a witness that wasn't...his.

The whole courtroom was baffled. I'm pretty sure the presiding judge looked over at me and mouthed "what the fuck?" Then she asked the attorney if that was his witnesses, at which point he sat down and his co-council continued with the cross.

This happened to one of our teams once.  Travis McGivern was judging...

[mockboxoflove]

One attorney stood up and made an objection for a witness that wasn't...his.

The whole courtroom was baffled. I'm pretty sure the presiding judge looked over at me and mouthed "what the fuck?" Then she asked the attorney if that was his witnesses, at which point he sat down and his co-council continued with the cross.

Wait, so not only did he object to a witness that wasn't his, but he also objected to his own teammate during cross?

[Nur Rauch]

Wait, so not only did he object to a witness that wasn't his, but he also objected to his own teammate during cross?

I think what he means by possession of the witness is that this attorney wasn't in any way assigned to the witness, as in they were neither supposed to direct the witness nor cross the witness, and yet he objected anyway. Haven't seen anything like that since high school mock.

[Ryan]

At Irvine Invitational:
My co-counsel begins the direct of Owens by informing her of her rights as a defendant. It goes something like this:
 
"DA: Ms. Owens you're aware that you have a 5th amendment right not to testify today?
JO: Yes.
DA: And you're aware that no inferences can be drawn if you choose not to--
CA: Objection. Relevance? (with a strong upward inflection)
Judge: She has a 5th amendment right...sit down."
 
...Sometimes its tough to see the relevance of the 5th amendment in a murder trial I guess.

[Rationallybasedperception]

At Irvine Invitational:
My co-counsel begins the direct of Owens by informing her of her rights as a defendant. It goes something like this:
 
"DA: Ms. Owens you're aware that you have a 5th amendment right not to testify today?
JO: Yes.
DA: And you're aware that no inferences can be drawn if you choose not to--
CA: Objection. Relevance? (with a strong upward inflection)
Judge: She has a 5th amendment right...sit down."
 
...Sometimes its tough to see the relevance of the 5th amendment in a murder trial I guess.

I ran into a similar issue at the Milwaukee regional. I was closing for the defense when during the state's closing argument he said:
"The defendant didn't testify today. The most important thing is that he didn't even declare his innocence!"
He then went on to repeat this same line right before calling for the verdict. Needless to say I was floored! I had no IDEA what to do! In real court you'd ask for a mistrial and I could tell by the judges reactions that they would be looking for me to do that, but I hadn't given my closing yet and I didn't want my request for a mistrial to be granted and have to wave closings and get a 0.... so I did the next best thing. I asked that the line be striken from the closing and the jury be admonished to disregard the statement because it violated Jackie Owens Constitutional rights. The judge let opposing council explain himself and then I cited State vs. Lowe. I never though I would ever actually have to cite that one.... but you know mock trial.... it always finds a way to surprise you!

[crl529]

Rationallybasedperception:
I think that was a good move. Honestly, if I was feeling sassy enough, I might have just stood up and objected during the closing just to see what what would happen. I think a decent proportion of judges might approve of that.



Another one from a byebuster round. CX of Jackie Owens. Defense call is Michaels, Grace, Owens:

Attorney: "Ms. Owens you hired a forensic entomologist to investigate when Jacob Bennett died?"
Owens: ...o_O "Yes."
Attorney: "And the entomologist found that the date of death was June 20th - June 26th?"
Owens: ...O_O "Yes."

The attorney then moved on to questions about her relationship with Alex Grace. One of those question was:

Attorney: "You were having dinner with Alex Grace on the night of June 16th 2008?"
Owens: "Yes, I was."

[Rationallybasedperception]

Round 2 at the Milwaukee regional during the cross of sydney Michaels

CA: When you came out and saw the defendant's tires slashed the defendant looked scared?
Sydney Michaels: No, I've never seen Jackie look scared.
CA: Is it your testimony that you've never seen the defendant look scared?
SM: Yes
INSERT IMPEACHMENT HERE
CA: Your honor I now move sydney Michaels affadavit into evidence
Judge: Any objections
DA: Yes, Hearsay
Judge: response?
CA: Yes, It's not hearsay because its her affadavit
Judge: response?
DA: It's hearsay because... well... it's just hearsay
Judge: Is it being used for impeachment?
CA: yes
Judge: overruled. It'll be admitted


This is the first time in 4 years of Mock Trial that I have EVER seen an affidavit actually admitted into evidence!

[The Narrator]

I ran into a similar issue at the Milwaukee regional. I was closing for the defense when during the state's closing argument he said:
"The defendant didn't testify today. The most important thing is that he didn't even declare his innocence!"
He then went on to repeat this same line right before calling for the verdict. Needless to say I was floored! I had no IDEA what to do! In real court you'd ask for a mistrial and I could tell by the judges reactions that they would be looking for me to do that, but I hadn't given my closing yet and I didn't want my request for a mistrial to be granted and have to wave closings and get a 0.... so I did the next best thing. I asked that the line be striken from the closing and the jury be admonished to disregard the statement because it violated Jackie Owens Constitutional rights. The judge let opposing council explain himself and then I cited State vs. Lowe. I never though I would ever actually have to cite that one.... but you know mock trial.... it always finds a way to surprise you!

Wowwwww...  We went up against a team whose closer said that court should find Owens not guilty, and then charge Casey Maxwell with the murder since Maxwell's trial was next. This would've been fine if we hadn't, y'know, called Maxwell.

What did the scores look like for closings after that?

[JPmendes]

From Worcester Regional, cross of Owens, a flamboyantly gay Owens:

CA: now Mr. Owens, you have a 5 million dollar gambling debt, don't you?
Owens: if you'd likedth to call ith thaaat...yesth sweetheart. Do you know what itsth liike being a thelebriTTY?!
CA: so to be clear, Mr. Owens, you have a 5 million dollar debt?
Owens: ISNTH THAAT WHAT I JUSTH THSAID?!!

18 minutes later, the cross exam of Jackie Owens ended. My co-counsel had 1 minute and 10 seconds to cross Michaels.

[Gavelbanger]

1. That's hilarious, though I can't see how someone can say those words before realizing they shouldn't.

2. Did they bring up a "Mr. Owens" during trial? I feel like fabricating a husband who scratched the car is, umm... ridiculously unethical (and just a crappy excuse in general).

Yea it was stupid, during their X of Lee they tried to get our witness to admit that the scratches could have been caused by a car wash (which she of course denied) then in their direct of Owens she said that her husband cleaned the Maserati but used the wrong brush? We were so far ahead of this team by this point that we let it slide

[Gavelbanger]

Gavelbanger threw in this phrase a couple times in his final closing of the weekend:  "The police kept fingering the wrong person"

Haha yep, still don't know how I managed to keep a straight face through that

[midwestmiami]

It appears to be Florida A&M unless MidwestMiami happened to just be watching while in the tab room.

It was actually Palm Beach State an i heard the story through my coach.They also went up to the AMTA rep during captains meeting and asked forsome of the bye buster people because they had 6 people an the otherteam had 8 and "the teams needed to be even." I believe they finishedthe tournament 0-8 with a point dif somewhere in the -390 range

[ninjaunderwear]

It was actually Palm Beach State an i heard the story through my coach.They also went up to the AMTA rep during captains meeting and asked forsome of the bye buster people because they had 6 people an the otherteam had 8 and "the teams needed to be even." I believe they finishedthe tournament 0-8 with a point dif somewhere in the -390 range

-384 point differential, but they can partially blame bad judging.  They had a 47-point spread between the two judges in round 4.  -72 and -25.

[muftiabraka]

-384 point differential, but they can partially blame bad judging.  They had a 47-point spread between the two judges in round 4.  -72 and -25.

Quoted for the first time I've heard of such a huge point spread in a case where it actually doesn't matter.