Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Final Round Discussion

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by STC
    From what I have heard (very much hearsay), this theory was not run earlier in the tournament
    This is not accurate. It was run in round four.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by bengarmoe View Post

      This is not accurate. It was run in round four.
      I'm just curious, did Yale call Rivers as a witness and run the same direct?

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Mocker999 View Post

        I'm just curious, did Yale call Rivers as a witness and run the same direct?
        They did, yes. I didn't watch the entire final round so there may have been nuanced differences, but the two rounds were fairly similar.

        Comment


        • #34
          bengarmoe Did your team notify tab of this problem before the final round? If not, I imagine they were unaware of it.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by bengarmoe View Post

            They did, yes. I didn't watch the entire final round so there may have been nuanced differences, but the two rounds were fairly similar.
            You should file an invention of fact thing with the CRC if you havent yet...

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by StateOfMidlands View Post
              bengarmoe Did your team notify tab of this problem before the final round? If not, I imagine they were unaware of it.
              I don't want to get in to any specifics out of respect for Yale and their accomplishments, and I certainly don't want to express an opinion in this post about whether I think anything they did broke the rules. But if I did, there's nothing that notifying tab could have done, because the only immediate remedy is impeachment.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by bengarmoe View Post

                This is not accurate. It was run in round four.
                Thank you, this is an excellent example of why hearsay is generally inadmissible.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by cfredricks View Post
                  I think there's definitely a strong argument for a rules violation (and that might be why we have no word from AMTA on twitter or the website about the results from the final round). In particular, I think Rivers crossed a line when he said (regarding his affidavit), "Of course that's what I said, I didn't want to get sued!" I think without that quote Yale might have been fine, but that is a pretty clear recanting of the affidavit, in the same way that was sanctioned last year.
                  I remember this line from Rivers’ cross, in response to the attorney asking if he would have told Anderson not to publish her post had he [Rivers] reviewed it beforehand (something confirmed in his affidavit). In the moment, I definitely thought Rivers was confirming that “of course” he would have recommended against the post if he had reviewed it/been officially linked to its content, because he aknowledged it’s unclear veracity (something he mentions earlier in his affidavit as posing a major risk of legal consequences). Officially authorizing an unconfirmed statement like that could have easily led to him getting sued, so of course he wouldn’t have officially condoned it beforehand because he “didn’t want to get sued” at that time.

                  Again, this was my initial interpretation of his line, I have no idea what the actual intent of the witness was, and I can see how it can be read multiple ways. It’s hard to remember the exact context in which it came up, and I would be eternally grateful to anyone who has a video clip of that part of the cross. Rivers had so many outbursts and exclamations (some of which seemed to contradict eachother factually) that while I understand his overall theory position, I’m having a hard time tracking exactly what his testimony was in response to each specific question.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Gryffindork View Post

                    I remember this line from Rivers’ cross, in response to the attorney asking if he would have told Anderson not to publish her post had he [Rivers] reviewed it beforehand (something confirmed in his affidavit). In the moment, I definitely thought Rivers was confirming that “of course” he would have recommended against the post if he had reviewed it/been officially linked to its content, because he aknowledged it’s unclear veracity (something he mentions earlier in his affidavit as posing a major risk of legal consequences). Officially authorizing an unconfirmed statement like that could have easily led to him getting sued, so of course he wouldn’t have officially condoned it beforehand because he “didn’t want to get sued” at that time.
                    sure... no one can be 100% certain of what he meant bc the witness did not conveniently follow up with “so what I mean is I recant my sworn affidavit, specifically lines __” but that seems like an unrealistic level of clarity to ask for. I can’t help with the clip or any links, pretty sure they’ve all been taken down.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      On cross-examination, a witness commits no violation or Improper Invention when she or he testifies to material facts not included in her or his affidavit—as long as the witness’s answer is responsive to the question posed. In other words, a witness is allowed to invent material facts on cross-examination as long as the witness remains responsive to the question posed.
                      - AMTA rulebook

                      With that understanding in mind, could anyone point to the part of Yale's DIRECT where Rivers stated anything that was not included in that witnesses materials?

                      Hostile witnesses are a thing in mock trial, they have been for a while. The point is to give the impression that the witness is saying something that their affidavit does not say through the witnesses performance. Just because Yale was able to successfully imply the existence of a material fact in that way does not mean they violated AMTA rules.
                      Last edited by DefenseMid; April 8th, 2019, 06:33 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        I have tried to transcribe the last half of the Rivers direct so we can talk about this with more complete knowledge. Which line, particularly, do people have issues with?

                        Q: Sir, did you ask Ms. Anderson to do anything different [after you found out that you might lose the school board contract]?
                        A: I - Yes, uh, look, we were going to lose the contract, we were going to lose millions of dollars. Almost everything we make in a year. Yes, I told her we needed her to do more than, you know, just post pictures of soccer players with milk mustaches, which is all she did.
                        Q: Did you offer her anything to make that change?
                        A: Yes, there was a $200,000 bonus in the contract, yes yes
                        Q: And sir, after you offered her all that money, did Ms. Anderson make any changes?
                        A: No, she just sat there for weeks.
                        Q: So what did you do?
                        A: I called her, I said “look, we are less than a week away from the vote that’s gonna decide who gets the contract for the school board, and it, and it looks like it’s still going to go to the fake almond thing – I mean, please, please do something. But she didn’t. She wouldn’t.”
                        Q: Sir, I want to be very clear about what it is you wanted from Ms. Anderson. Did you ask her to post something negative?
                        A: Look, I told you before, what she posts – her business, her responsibility, has nothing to do with us.
                        Q: Sir, you are under oath today. Did you ask her to post something negative?
                        A: It’s what we needed.
                        Q: Sir, yes or no, did you ask her to post something negative?
                        A: Look - Sh-she wrote it, not us.
                        Q: Sir, you asked her to post something negative, didn’t you?
                        Q: Yes, or no, in your contract, you asked Ms. Anderson to post something negative?
                        A: Yes.
                        Q: And sir, what was Ms. Anderson’s stance on posting something negative?
                        A: She wouldn’t do it …
                        Q: Sir.
                        A: … Unless she believed it was true.
                        Q: So sir, we’ve all heard what Ms. Anderson posted, I have to ask, sir – did you do something to make that happen?
                        Q: Sir?
                        A: All we did was we gave her a push – we had to. We had to.


                        To me, "we gave her a push" is the only part of this direct that is even CLOSE to material invention, and given the fact that the bonus is in the contract, the fact that Rivers affidavit indicates he called Anderson to try to get her to save the contract, makes "we gave her a push" seem completely reasonable to me. Obviously the implication is that this "push" was "sending 2 people to the store to try to convince Anderson there was lead in milk." But implication is not invention.
                        Last edited by DefenseMid; April 8th, 2019, 07:44 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by DefenseMid View Post

                          - AMTA rulebook

                          With that understanding in mind, could anyone point to the part of Yale's DIRECT where Rivers stated anything that was not included in that witnesses materials?

                          Hostile witnesses are a thing in mock trial, they have been for a while. The point is to give the impression that the witness is saying something that their affidavit does not say through the witnesses performance. Just because Yale was able to successfully imply the existence of a material fact in that way does not mean they violated AMTA rules.

                          Well, there is a bit more to the rule for inventions on cross---the portion you quoted is only for omission inventions. Direct contradictions of the affidavit are also inventions and rule violations.


                          "(4) IMPROPER INVENTION.
                          (a) Definition. There are exactly two types of Improper Invention:
                          i. Any instance (on direct, cross, re-direct, or re-cross examination) in which a witness introduces testimony that contradicts the witness’s affidavit."


                          I haven't watched the round, but it sounds like people are alleging a violation of that rule during cross.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            I feel like this is more of a recantation issue, and less of a material invention issue. Are those two necessarily the same?

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Recanting IS the invention. We don't have a separate rule clarifying "you can't recant", but it's an egregious invention of fact because it effectively disavows the facts in the case materials.

                              I'm glad someone has taken the time to transcribe a portion of the direct, but to understand the severity and to get in the mindset of the judges who rewarded it, you'd have to also watch the whole thing starting with the openings (when Yale said the dairy farmers planted people in the grocery store to manipulate the defendant), and you'd have to read the case to know what facts are and are not available. The totality of the circumstances matters, and the only reasonable interpretation in my mind is the witness recanted.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by geneva View Post
                                Recanting IS the invention. We don't have a separate rule clarifying "you can't recant", but it's an egregious invention of fact because it effectively disavows the facts in the case materials.

                                I'm glad someone has taken the time to transcribe a portion of the direct, but to understand the severity and to get in the mindset of the judges who rewarded it, you'd have to also watch the whole thing starting with the openings (when Yale said the dairy farmers planted people in the grocery store to manipulate the defendant), and you'd have to read the case to know what facts are and are not available. The totality of the circumstances matters, and the only reasonable interpretation in my mind is the witness recanted.
                                I certainly agree with this, you would have to watch Yale's open and closing, and understand the way the case was written. Sadly, AMTA seems to have removed the video late last night.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X