Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Final Round Discussion

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Final Round Discussion

    Watch the final round?
    Thoughts?
    Who did you have winning?
    Best witnesses?
    Favorite moments?

  • #2
    I watched the final round. Can someone clarify why denying the affidavit isnít a rule violation? Or did he not actually deny it. Overall I thought Yale was better and Sullivan was the best witness

    Comment


    • #3
      I loved the way that Yale did the hostile witness. The judges really seemed to dig it too. Daniel Elliot really crushed that cross as well for his last ever collegiate mock performance. Probably the best 15 minutes of mock I've ever seen

      Comment


      • #4
        I just want to say that I loved watching three time All American (not counting the final round), Kelsey McClain, deliver a closing argument in a blue dress suit just like I did 18 years ago (hence the username). Iím sorry it worked out the same for you, Kelsey, but Iím glad the AMTA world got to see how amazing you are!

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by adamsel View Post
          I watched the final round. Can someone clarify why denying the affidavit isnít a rule violation? Or did he not actually deny it. Overall I thought Yale was better and Sullivan was the best witness
          This is also something I don't understand. It seems like an almost exact replica of the scenario that led to a team getting sanctioned last year: http://www.collegemocktrial.org/18-0...s%20Letter.pdf

          I guess Yale wasn't as blatant with it? It definitely feels like blaming the Dairy Farmers wasn't an intended defense by the case writers. Not that creative theories aren't welcomed, but flat out denying the affidavit means that impeachment isn't a good enough remedy for fact invention. And there was nothing else Rhodes could have really done in that scenario. Feels a bit icky to me.

          Comment


          • #6
            I think what Yale did was a clear rule violation, and it was wrong. It changed the trial in such a way that made it nearly impossible for the plaintiff. It undercuts the hard work of everyone who has prepped this case in real honest and creative ways. And I think itís shameful for a team as talented and creative as Yale to resort to such a strategy. What they have done in the past pushes the boundaries of the rules, but it wasnít a clear violation of the rules. Hereís a quote from a CRC sanction memo:


            ďThe CRC considers recanting affidavits to be among the most egregious inventions of fact. It totally separates a trial from the case materials, and eliminates impeachment as an effective remedy. In doing so, it gives teams an unfair competitive advantage for which their opponent has no recourse. Accordingly, the CRC takes witnesses recanting their affidavits extremely seriously and believes that a severe sanction is warranted.Ē

            Who knows what will come of this, but some sort of action must be taken.

            Comment


            • #7
              Could someone explain what Yale did for those of us who didnít see it?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by tonygomes View Post
                Could someone explain what Yale did for those of us who didnít see it?
                https://youtu.be/kEfRPrwSfxs?t=15074

                Here's the recording of the round (timestamped when the impeachment starts) I'd recommend everyone judging for themselves. (at least until AMTA takes this recording down)

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by RedRupee1 View Post

                  And there was nothing else Rhodes could have really done in that scenario. Feels a bit icky to me.
                  Idk if this changes the calculus of it at all, but I thought Rhodes did a beautiful job of handling this scenario. That cross was a standout moment of the round and did a lot of damage to Yale's theory. I don't know what the scoring looked like but to me the invention of fact ended up being a net positive for rhodes.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    What happened (and someone please correct me if my memory is off) is that Yale's theory was the the Dairy lobby orchestrated the entire thing and hired the two people to go to the supermarket and talk about how Empowermilk had lead in it. Yale called the Rivers, the CEO of Dairy Farmers of Midlands as their final witness. Rivers was played -- quite compellingly, imo -- as a hostile witness. He started by saying he didn't know why he was there, then Elizabeth Bays started asking him about his role in the tweet. He became evasive and wasn't answering her questions (even drawing some non responsive objections from Daniel Elliot). Then he broke down and admitted that he had hired the people and told Anderson to send the tweet. Elliot started his cross with an impeachment, going to the line that said "If I had known what Anderson was going to say, I wouldíve told Anderson not to do it." The witness then said "of course that's what I said, I didn't want to get sued!" The rest of the cross consisted of him saying "I'm trying to help you" to the attorney.

                    I think that this is a pretty clear cut rules violation. Yale's witness seemed to recant his affidavit, or at bare minimum said that he had not been truthful when making it. I agree with the other people here who say that this is too far. I just don't see how Rhodes is supposed to counter this. You can't impeach someone with their affidavit when they are admitting that they lied in their affidavit. It's an issue where, to someone not familiar with the constraints of mock trial and the closed universe, it seems realistic and believable that something like this would happen. But in the context of this activity, it gives Yale an unfair advantage. I think it constituted an improper invention, and at bare minimum I would like to see some kind of explanation from AMTA.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      It is weird that AMTA hasnít tweeted anything or posted tab summaries.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        tonygomes Essentially, Yale ran a defense where they claimed that the Dairy Milk people hired two men to talk about lead in almond power in order to push Anderson into posting about it so that they could save the Dairy Milk contract. They called Anderson, Sullivan, and Rivers. Anderson and Sullivan were fine, talked about two strange guys that never had been in the grocery store before all of a sudden being there and talking loudly about lead in almond milk. But when Yale called Rivers 3rd, they treated him as hostile. They asked him if he pushed Anderson into making the post a few times, and got increasingly more and more defensive about it until he eventually "caved" and said that he in fact pushed Anderson into making the post. I don't believe he ever outright stated that he hired two men to enter the store and fabricate a story. However, he did lie about telling Anderson to make up a fake story about almond milk, and when crossed and impeached, he kept saying stuff like "Why are you doing this, I'm trying to help you?!?" to the crossing attorney. It was a pretty intense direct and cross, especially for the last witness.

                        Personally, I feel this was very much a violation of AMTA rules. I do think Yale was winning up until that point in the trial, they had good witnesses and more effective crosses I feel. I actually thought Rivers was good up until he recanted his affidavit, because he clearly seemed like he was hiding something and didn't want to admit that he had some part in the social media post. But it crossed the line when he stated that he pushed Anderson into making the post and asked her to fabricate a lie to hurt Empowermilk. Credit where credit is due, the crossing attorney handled it as effectively as possible and didn't falter when impeaching Rivers. But it was also clear that Yale had make Rivers impossible to effectively cross BECAUSE of the fact that he denied certain things in his affidavit.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Mocker999 View Post
                          tonygomes

                          Personally, I feel this was very much a violation of AMTA rules. I do think Yale was winning up until that point in the trial, they had good witnesses and more effective crosses I feel. I.
                          It was so weird, because my team scored while watching the livestream and without the rivers cross situation it would have been a blowout Yale victory but it came back into the low single digits, so I feel super mixed, like Yale was still the better team factoring in the rule violation. At least my team felt the gravity of the situation to the point where one of our freshman asked me "did that cross just lose the round for them?". But then even factoring that in we had Yale winning, which begs the question of how that ought to be handled.
                          Last edited by Ali Thomas; April 7th, 2019, 09:43 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I was rather stunned to watch it happen in real-time over the stream. Reviewing the recording posted above, it strikes me as a fairly clear and serious rule violation where the witness does deny the truth of their own affidavit. As others have said, the Rhodes attorney's cross examination and impeachment could not have been better in any way I can think of. Yet the impeachment nonetheless failed to establish the gravity of the witness's rule violation, by design of the rule violation itself. The content of rule violation was then heavily used in Yale's closing as a basis for why their team prevails. The impeachment was impeccably executed and yet still insufficient to remedy the rule violation, so I believe a sanction would be warranted under previous AMTA precedent for this issue.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Yale broke the rules. And breaking those rules breaks the game that the rest of us agreed to play. As a longtime coach, I would be shocked and disheartened if AMTA's ultimate response to this is no response.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X