No announcement yet.

Favorite Case Over the Past 4 Years? (POLL)

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Favorite Case Over the Past 4 Years? (POLL)

    I've always had an interest in comparing old AMTA cases. And as we prepare for State v. Ryder, I thought I'd be fun to reflect on what made previous cases work well/not work well, and what the case committees could do to improve for the future.

    I chose not to include Nationals Cases, as not everyone had a chance to run those (and it's tough to really compare them to year long cases due to their shorter length.)

    I would personally rank the cases, Hendricks, Bancroft/Covington, Kosack, Winter.

    I love'd the variety in case theories in Hendricks, from blaming Carmen, Mickey, a random drug dealer, a hitman, to whatever other crazy stuff people came up with thanks to the affidavit-less defendant. Murder is always fun to argue (part of the reason I'm looking forward to Ryder) and having a victim who could ID the defendant made it more balanced than previous murder scenarios (like Owens or Thornhill) It's just a fun case to argue, and it never really got old to me by the end of the year.

    In Bancroft/Covington having two defendants basically gave you two cases for the price of one. It's a lot of fun looking at the case from those two perspectives, and determining which witnesses suited which prosecution better. You could chose to argue a legally complex case by Prosecuting Bancroft and arguing against Entrapment, or a factually complex case by Prosecuting Covington and having to prove your burden. I really hope they bring back this concept of two sides of the case in the future (it was also well executed in Park v. Duran with its two charges.)

    Kosack was pretty good, I did feel it starting to get a bit stale by Regionals, which is something I didn't feel with Hendricks. But the facts were interesting, and the TV setting gave room for a lot of colorful characters to portray. I think the biggest flaw is the lack of unique theories, pretty much every Plaintiff team I saw argued the lack of training, and every Defense team argued the reach. It's not that other strategies weren't available, it's just that I don't think they were as viable, so teams avoided them for what worked. Definitely something to avoid in the future.

    I'm gonna be honest, the facts of Winter really don't interest me all that much. It's certainly unique, but harder to get really passionate for. Bifurcation was kind of a neat idea, and I wouldn't mind seeing a similar kind of system in the future (choosing to increase your burden on Plaintiff by having to prove damages, in exchange for an incredible piece of evidence to prove liability.) It was very balanced, but ultimately unexciting, not my cup of tea, but I could see how others may prefer balance over an exciting fact pattern.

    What are your thoughts? Are there any ideas from old cases you'd like to see in the future? Any long-pent up rants about a particular case? Any old timers want to shine in on cases before 2016? Let's discuss something non-Yale related!
    MTS v. Kosack
    State v. Hendricks
    Winter v. TBD
    State v. Bancroft/Covington

  • #2
    I will go to bat for Riley Winter any day.


    • #3
      Winter v TBD was interesting, it just didn't have the excellent variety in viable cases that State v Hendricks did. That, mixed with the exciting nature of the crime and the even more exciting nature of the soup truck makes State v Hendricks my top pick.