Mock Trial

Chris Moss v. New Columbia Public School

District and Dr. Terry Preece
The mother of a graduating high school senior sues
the Metro City School District for educational malpractice.

Developed by the D.C. Street Law Clinic

at Georgetown University Law Center
Prepared by Ellen Marrus
Rewritten and revised by Charisma X. Howell, Clinical Fellow,
and Richard L. Roe, Program Director and Professor of Law

Distributed by Street Law, Inc.

This trial may be used and duplicated for non-commercial academic use.
 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW COLUMBIA
IN AND FOR NEW COLUMBIA COUNTY

Chris Moss )
)
Plaintiff ) Civil Case No.: CV01-192008
)
v. )
)
The New Columbia Public School District )
and; )
Dr. Terry Preece, as an agent/employee )
of the NCPSD )

Case Summary 1

Chris Moss lives at 2300 14th Street in Metro City, in the state of New Columbia,

and is a senior at New Columbia Senior High School. New Columbia Senior High

School is a public school within the New Columbia Public School District. Chris has

been enrolled in New Columbia public schools since entering kindergarten at the age of

five. Chris has progressed from grade to grade and has always at least minimally passed

all classes. Chris has never been tested for any learning disabilities, and the standardized

test scores indicate Chris is an average student. Chris is scheduled to graduate on time

and receive a high school diploma at the end of the school year.

Chris' basic skills in reading, writing and arithmetic are extremely weak. The

basic skills Chris possesses are so poor that Chris finds it difficult to function adequately

in society. Chris has difficulty reading simple books, the newspaper, a menu in a

restaurant, writing a simple letter or making sure correct change is given by a store clerk.

1
The foregoing summary of the case is provided solely for the convenience of the
participants in the Mock Trial Tournament. This overview itself does not constitute
evidence and may not be introduced at trial or used as impeachment.

Pg 1 of 53
Chris M. v. NCPSD and Preece
Developed by the D.C. Street Law Clinic at Georgetown University Law Center
 Chris has applied for several jobs during the past year and a half and has been

unsuccessful in finding and holding a job. Chris has had difficulty in filling out job

applications due to poor reading and writing skills. Prospective employers feel Chris

cannot handle minimal responsibilities in a job. Chris has also been looking for a full-

time job to begin after graduation and has not been able to find one. Chris believes the

inability to find employment is directly related to a lack of basic academic skills.

Claims and Defenses

Chris is suing the New Columbia Public School District and Dr. Terry Preece for

educational malpractice ,which is classified as a tort. Educational malpractice is not

widely recognized, but is emerging as a new cause of action in many jurisdictions. Chris

claims the school district, and Dr. Preece as the implementer of the district’s educational

policies, have negligently failed in their statutory duty, under New Columbia Education

Code Sections 2097, 2098 ,2099, and, 2101, to educate Chris in the basic academic skills.

Chris claims the defendants have a statutory duty to educate students and to meet the

individual needs of students in the school district and that they have failed to do so in this

case. Since Chris has not acquired the basic skills necessary to succeed in society, Chris

is unable to find employment and will be unable to provide for basic needs in the future.

The defendants claim they have met their duty, which they describe as providing

educational opportunities for students enrolled in the schools. Chris had the opportunity

to attend school and was exposed to the same educational opportunities as other students

who were able to learn and master basic academic skills and more. In addition, the

defendants assert that there is no proof that the schools or their agents are responsible for

Chris' failure to learn, as there are many outside factors that contribute to a student's

inability to learn.
Pg 2 of 53
Chris M. v. NCPSD and Preece
Developed by the D.C. Street Law Clinic at Georgetown University Law Center
 Relief Requested

Chris is asking the court to make a finding of educational malpractice and grant

injunctive relief. The school district should be ordered to develop a program and policies

that meet the needs of individual students so all students graduate from senior high school

with at least the ability to perform basic academic skills. In addition, the plaintiff is

requesting the sum of $20,000 to pay for an individual tutor, who would help bring Chris'

academic skills up to par, plus attorney fees and court costs.

The defendants are asking the court to find there was no educational malpractice

on the part of the defendants and to deny the injunctive or monetary relief sought by the

plaintiff.

Witnesses

Plaintiff Witnesses

1. Chris Moss, Plaintiff

2. Dr. Gerry Stein, Education Testing Specialist

3. Sydney Payne, Office Manager, Bowers & Jenkins law firm

Defense Witnesses

1. Dr. Terry Preece, School Superintendent

2. Leslie Brown, teacher, New Columbia Senior High School

3. Alex Lloyd, student, New Columbia Senior High School

Stipulations

The parties stipulate to the authenticity and admissibility of all of the official exhibits.

Pg 3 of 53
Chris M. v. NCPSD and Preece
Developed by the D.C. Street Law Clinic at Georgetown University Law Center
 Brief History on Education Reform and the Tort of Educational Malpractice

The first reported cases of educational malpractice hailed from Louisiana (in 1973),

California (in 1976) and New York (in 1979). However, the idea of educators being held

responsible for education of their students did not take hold of the courts until 1980.

Between 1980 and 2001, there was a barrage of cases dealing with the tort of educational

malpractice, also referred to as “failure to teach” or “failure to educate” torts. Parents and

students sought relief from school systems which they viewed as inadequate in their

ability to properly educate.

A monumental event in the educational movement came in January 2002, when

President George W. Bush signed into law the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. The

new law was an open acknowledgement and acceptance of the need for vast educational

reform. It was enacted to improve the performance of students in lower performing

schools and provide safeguards to ensure educational accountability. The Act also

required states to implement measures for schools to assess student performance.

Although there is much debate on as to the success of the No Child Left Behind

Act, it is undeniable that the issue of educational accountability is of major importance.

Pg 4 of 53
Chris M. v. NCPSD and Preece
Developed by the D.C. Street Law Clinic at Georgetown University Law Center
 Mock Pretrial Motion

This section of the mock trial packet contains materials and procedures for the

preparation of a pretrial motion on an important issue. The judge’s ruling on the pretrial

motion will have a direct bearing on the admissibility of certain pieces of evidence and

the possible outcome of the trial. All pretrial information can be used in each side’s case

in chief. The pretrial motion is designed to help students learn about the legal process and

legal reasoning. Students will learn how to draw analogies, distinguish a variety of

factual situations and analyze and debate constitutional issues. In the case at hand, the

parties will be arguing the following issue: What duty does a school have to educate and

assess its students, particularly when certifying them as high school graduates?

Plaintiff may consider the following in preparation for their pretrial motion

presentation:

1. What should schools realistically be required to do to advance student learning?

2. What responsibility does a school have to inform students of their educational

progress of lack of progress?

3. Courts routinely set a standard of care for physicians and surgeons. Should the

court set similar standards for educational institutions and their representatives?

4. Will a failure to allow this case to proceed result in permitting the defendants to

maintain deficient standards?

The defense may consider the following in preparation for their pretrial motion

presentation:

1. Can schools be required to make students learn, or don’t the students bear a major

portion of the responsibility for learning?

Pg 5 of 53
Chris M. v. NCPSD and Preece
Developed by the D.C. Street Law Clinic at Georgetown University Law Center
2. How can educational damage to students be measured, proved, and remedied by

courts?

3. Wouldn’t allowing this case to proceed open a floodgate for cases by other

dissatisfied students?

4. How can students show that schools cause their educational deficiencies?

Pg 6 of 53
Chris M. v. NCPSD and Preece
Developed by the D.C. Street Law Clinic at Georgetown University Law Center
 The Mock Trial Pretrial Motion Hearing

Procedural Information

The prosecution and defense may have only one pretrial attorney each, presenting

the arguments and the rebuttal for their team. We encourage judges to challenge the

attorneys with questions, including about the case law, during pretrial arguments. All of

the materials in the mock trial packet can be used for the purposes of the pretrial motion.

No objections are allowed during pretrial arguments.

In order to present a position in the most persuasive manner, students should

carefully review and become familiar with the materials provided in this packet.

Additional background research may supplement their understanding of the constitutional

issues at hand, but such supplemental materials may not be cited in arguments. The

pretrial motion will be made orally. No written pretrial memorandum may be submitted

to the judge.

The timeline of the Pretrial Motion Hearing is as follows:

1. The hearing is called to order

2. The judge asks the plaintiff’s pretrial motion attorney to summarize the arguments

made in the motion.

3. The plaintiff has a total of 10 minutes to present its argument. The first three

minutes will consist of an uninterrupted presentation of its argument. During the

next five minutes, the judge may ask clarifying questions. The judge must cease

asking questions once a total of 8 minutes have elapsed and the argument must

end. The final two minutes will be reserved for any rebuttal of the opposing side’s

arguments.

Pg 7 of 53
Chris M. v. NCPSD and Preece
Developed by the D.C. Street Law Clinic at Georgetown University Law Center
4. The judge asks the defense’s pretrial motion attorney to summarize arguments

made in its opposition motion. The defense will have 10 minutes for its

presentation. The first three minutes will consist of uninterrupted time, which the

defense may use to counter any of the plaintiff’s arguments, after which the judge

may ask clarifying questions during the remaining seven minutes. There will be

no time reserved for rebuttal.

5. Arguments raised in the pretrial motion may be reused during the closing

arguments.

6. The judge will postpone ruling on the motion until the conclusion of the trial,

when he or she announces their decision on the case.

7. Beyond having a direct effect on the outcome of the trial on the merits, scores for

the pretrial motion presentations will be added to each team’s total scores in

determining the winner of the trial in terms of team performance.

Pg 8 of 53
Chris M. v. NCPSD and Preece
Developed by the D.C. Street Law Clinic at Georgetown University Law Center
 LEGAL AUTHORITIES

I. Statutes

New Columbia Educ. Code Section 2097: Proficiency Standards for Students

Each school district shall develop proficiency standards which shall include, but

need not be limited to, reading comprehension, writing and computation skills in

the English language, necessary for success in school and life experience, and shall

be such as will enable individual achievement to be ascertained and evaluated. The

standards shall be directly related to the district's instructional program.

New Columbia Educ. Code Section 2098: Analysis of Individual Needs and
Potential

The competent educator shall use or promote the use of appropriate diagnostic

techniques to analyze the needs and potential of individuals. Among the techniques

to be considered are personal observation, analysis of individual performance and

achievement, and specific performance testing.

The competent educator shall use the results of evaluations for planning and

program modification, and share the results of evaluation with affected parties.

New Columbia Educ. Code Section 2099: Instructional Procedures

Each competent educator shall create an atmosphere that encourages learning, use

procedures appropriate to the designated task, and encourage expression of ideas,

opinions and feelings.

Each competent educator shall create interest through the use of appropriate

materials and consider the individual interests and abilities of students.

Pg 9 of 53
Chris M. v. NCPSD and Preece
Developed by the D.C. Street Law Clinic at Georgetown University Law Center
 New Columbia Educ. Code Section 2100: Administrative Duties

Each competent school administrator shall support the process of learning by

providing appropriate and reasonable materials and equipment and by making

reasonable assignments of tasks.

Each competent school administrator shall enforce the statutory requirements to

the best of their ability.

II. Case Law *

Jane Smith v. Charlotte School District, 65 A.2d 54 (NC, 1988)

Student sued the school district for failing to educate her in the basic academic

skills. She graduated from high school with the inability to fill out a job application

or do simple mathematical computations. Statutes in the state required school

districts to provide analysis of students' individual needs and to develop learning

programs which meet these needs. In addition, the state provided for certification

of teachers and viewed them as professionals.

The court made a finding of educational malpractice based on the school district's

failure to meet the requirements of the statutes. The court stated "... public

educators are professionals. They hold themselves out as possessing certain skill

and knowledge with some minimum degree of competence. In addition, like other

professionals, they must often make educated judgments in applying their

knowledge to specific individual needs. As professionals, they owe a professional

duty of care to children who receive their services and a standard of care based

*
These are cases which may be used in the mock trial. It should be assumed they
are not from New Columbia and not binding on this Court.

Pg 10 of 53
Chris M. v. NCPSD and Preece
Developed by the D.C. Street Law Clinic at Georgetown University Law Center
upon customary conduct is appropriate. There can be no question that negligent

conduct on the part of a public educator may damage a child by inflicting

psychological damage and emotional distress. Moreover, since public educators

purport to teach, it follows that some causal relationship may exist between the

conduct of a teacher and the failure of a child to learn. Thus, it is possible to

maintain a viable tort action against such professionals for educational

malpractice."

John W. v Broad School District, 54 Cal. App.3d 822 (CA, 1988)

The student sued the school district for failing to educate him because he

graduated from high school reading and writing on only a sixth grade level. The

court would not entertain any action for educational malpractice, stating "the

achievement of literacy in the schools, or its failure, is influenced by a host of

factors which affect the pupil subjectively, from outside the formal teaching process

and beyond the control of its ministers. These may be physical, neurological,

emotional, cultural or environmental. They may be present but not perceived.

School authorities may not be able to recognize them nor can schools be held

responsible for the failure of parents or the students themselves."

Pg 11 of 53
Chris M. v. NCPSD and Preece
Developed by the D.C. Street Law Clinic at Georgetown University Law Center
 Affidavit of Chris Moss

Plaintiff

1. My name is Chris Moss. I am eighteen (18) years old and a senior at New

Columbia Senior High School. I live at 2300 14th Street, apartment number 2, in

Metro City, New Columbia. I live with my mother and younger brother in a one

bedroom apartment. My mother has always worked full-time for an office

cleaning company in order to support us.

2. When I was younger, I would stay with a neighbor, Mrs. Jones, after I came

home from school until my mother returned from work. Mrs. Jones has seven

children of her own, so it was no big deal for her to have me over at her house.

When I turned eleven my mother let me stay by myself. I didn't need anyone

looking after me. Lots of nights my mother doesn't get home until late. She tries

to put in a lot of overtime because we need the money.

3. I've always gone to public schools in New Columbia. I don't particularly

mind going to school. My attendance at school was very good in elementary

school. I did miss some school in junior high and high school, like all kids do, but

it didn't have any impact on my grades. I still passed all my classes.

4. Sometimes the assignments don't make much sense to me. Once when I

asked for help the teacher was too busy. I don't like to ask my mother for help.

She's usually tired when she comes home from work and doesn't have the energy

to look at my schoolwork.

5. Most of my classes have been pretty boring. My teachers don't seem very

competent. Usually they just lecture to us. They keep giving us a lot of

information, but don't really get us involved or check to see if we understand.

Pg 12 of 53
Chris M. v. NCPSD and Preece
Developed by the D.C. Street Law Clinic at Georgetown University Law Center
 Sometimes they'll have a student read something from the book and then ask us

questions about it. Even though I can't read, that never bothered me. If I got

called on to read, I would just say, "I'd rather not." I could always answer the

questions when someone else read the paragraph. Before an exam the teachers

usually hold a review session. This would be really helpful because I could

memorize exactly what they wanted me to know the night before the test and then

forget it right away. I even memorized key words so I would know what answers

to put where. I never understood the written material but the review sessions

helped me pass the tests.

6. I heard there was a new reading program being offered at the high school a

couple of years ago, but I figured there was no point in going. It was early in the

morning and I don't like to get up too early. Also, I had trouble reading, so what

was the point in going to school and sitting in a room with a lot of other students

and trying to read a book? I spoke to a couple of friends about the program and it

sounded dumb and boring.

7. In math class I learned how to add, subtract, multiply and divide, but I never

had to use the skills in real situations. I didn't learn any practical skills like giving

change or balancing a checkbook. In lots of math classes we were allowed to use

calculators, so I didn't even have to memorize basic math facts.

8. I know I'm not the brightest student in school, but I do try to do my work. I

enjoyed my social studies class with Leslie Brown last year, especially the mock

trial. I learned a lot in her class.

9. My mother always looked at my report card and since I have always passed

all my classes, she was pretty happy with the way I was performing in school. I

Pg 13 of 53
Chris M. v. NCPSD and Preece
Developed by the D.C. Street Law Clinic at Georgetown University Law Center
 wasn't planning to go on to college, but I thought I would get a job, save some

money and then get a place of my own. It always feels crowded in our apartment

and I would like some space to call my own.

10. I started looking for a part-time job last year. Before that I had to watch my

younger brother and couldn't work after school. I went to some of the fast-food

stores, the supermarkets, department stores, and other neighborhood stores to see

about a job. I thought I could work in one of those places because I have friends

with jobs there. The first place I went I had a lot of trouble filling out the job

application. I couldn't read all the questions they asked and ended up answering

the questions wrong. I felt like a real dummy. After that, when I was applying to

other places, I tried to take the application home with me so I could have a friend

help me fill it out and then send it back.

11. I did get hired by Hamburger King last year. I worked there for about a

month. For some reason, while I was working there the new computer cash

registers kept going out. We had to figure out the amount of change each person

should get from their purchase. I couldn't figure out the right amount of change.

People would get impatient while I was trying to figure it out. A couple of people

took advantage of me and demanded more money than they were supposed to get.

I ended up being short a number of nights. The manager caught me giving too

much money back and got really angry and fired me. I can't blame him for firing

me. I know the store can't afford to lose money all the time.

12. A couple of employers I talked to seemed to really like me. They said if I

could improve my reading and writing skills they would hire me. I really wanted

the job at Bowers and Jenkins and tried hard to do well on the application. It

Pg 14 of 53
Chris M. v. NCPSD and Preece
Developed by the D.C. Street Law Clinic at Georgetown University Law Center
 seems to me since I always tried in school and passed all my classes I should be

able to get a job. I went to school most of the time and did my homework

sometimes. No one does their homework all the time. There are too many other

things to do like parties, movies, and football games.

13. My mother is really upset. She had no idea I couldn't read. My grades in

school were always okay (mostly Cs) so she figured I must have been doing fine.

The school should have made sure I could read and write before they passed me

on from grade to grade. Now I don't even have the skills needed to get a lousy

job. How am I going to be able to support myself later on? I can't count on my

mother to support me forever.

This I swear under penalty of perjury.

Chris Moss
Chris Moss

Pg 15 of 53
Chris M. v. NCPSD and Preece
Developed by the D.C. Street Law Clinic at Georgetown University Law Center
 Affidavit of Dr. Gerry Stein

Education Specialist

Witness for the Plaintiff

1. My name is Dr. Gerry Stein. I have a B.A. degree in elementary education,

a Masters degree in supervision in education, and a Doctorate in education,

specializing in curriculum development. I was a teacher for 10 years, a principal

for four years and superintendent for curriculum development for two years in

Lake City, New Columbia. I moved to Metro City two years ago and applied for

a similar job, but Dr. Preece didn't hire me for the position, so I have been doing

private consultation with individuals and school districts since that time. The

plaintiff is paying me $1,000 for my testimony.

2. I spent about four hours interviewing and testing Chris' basic skills.

Although the test scores indicate Chris is below grade level at this time, Chris is

intelligent and could have learned if Chris was taught properly in school. A

curriculum must meet the needs of all the students and help them reach their

potential.

3. I also spent a great deal of time reviewing written policies and procedures of

the school district and have found them lacking. The district is not meeting the

needs of individual students and their families and is not following all of its

policies. The district has a policy in regard to attendance. If a student is out, the

parent is supposed to be called in the morning to find out why the student is not in

school. The student is supposed to return to school with a note from the parent or

a doctor. When Chris' attendance started to decline in junior high school, the

school should have checked the situation out. No one from the school contacted
Pg 16 of 53
Chris M. v. NCPSD and Preece
Developed by the D.C. Street Law Clinic at Georgetown University Law Center
 Chris' mother to find out why Chris was missing school. There is no record of

anyone calling Chris' mother to find out the reasons for Chris' nonattendance.

4. In addition, when Chris missed the eighth grade standardized tests, the

school should have arranged for Chris to make them up. If the school district

believes in giving standardized tests as one means of evaluating students, then the

schools should be sure all students take the tests. Perhaps if the school had given

Chris the test in eighth grade they might have noticed Chris' reading ability had

dropped.

5. Although Chris passed all classes, it should have been clear that the basic

academic skills needed to be successful were beyond Chris' ability. Evaluation

techniques should be supportive of the goals the school district is trying to

accomplish. Since all students should graduate from high school with a

proficiency in the English language, any evaluation program that does not pick up

a student lacking these skills is not meeting its purpose. Several teachers in the

school district informed me they had been instructed by the principal of the school

to pass students who had questionable grades. They were told the students needed

to be moved on so they could get an education. Students don't get much of an

education if they don't have a foundation to build on.

6. New Columbia School District needs to change its curriculum and policies.

It should develop a curriculum that has input from teachers, parents and students.

If everyone participates in the planning of the curriculum, it is more likely to meet

the needs of the students and the parties will have a larger stake in making sure it

will work. Individual evaluations should be done for each student, and based on

the evaluation, an individual learning plan should be developed that meets the

Pg 17 of 53
Chris M. v. NCPSD and Preece
Developed by the D.C. Street Law Clinic at Georgetown University Law Center
 needs and learning styles of the individual students. The student’s progress in that

individual plan should be examined regularly and any problems or progresses

should be provided to both parents and students. The current evaluation system in

the New Columbia schools consists of standardized tests in fifth and eighth grades

and report cards issued four times a year. As far as I can tell, there is no

mechanism in place to make sure all students are given the standardized tests.

Also, there is no guarantee that students or parents pay attention to the report

cards. Follow-up should be done with parents whose children are in trouble in

school.

7. I have been told that the current reading program is a class before school

where the teachers read a book with the students. To my knowledge, there is no

accounting for the varying reading levels of the students or a proper mechanism to

measure the students reading progress.

8. The reading program should be redesigned to include these elements: (1)

developmental reading - systematic, sequential instruction that begins in the

preschool years and continues through high school; (2) functional reading -

practice using reading to solve problems in widely diverse school and other life

areas; (3) independent/recreational reading - time and materials to foster lifetime

reading habits ; and (4) corrective/remedial reading - help for children who need it

for either poor skills, habits or attitudes.

9. There is no good reason Chris could not learn. Chris is an intelligent,

personable and verbal student and has the capability to learn. The school system

just failed to educate Chris and should be held accountable.

Pg 18 of 53
Chris M. v. NCPSD and Preece
Developed by the D.C. Street Law Clinic at Georgetown University Law Center
This I swear under penalty of perjury.

Dr. Gerry Stein

Dr. Gerry Stein

Pg 19 of 53
Chris M. v. NCPSD and Preece
Developed by the D.C. Street Law Clinic at Georgetown University Law Center
 Affidavit of Sydney Payne

Office Manager, Bowers & Jenkins

Witness for the Plaintiff

1. My name is Sydney Payne and I live at 4433 Foxhall Drive, Metro City.

I've lived in Metro City since I got married 20 years ago. I have two children:

Bobby who is 15 years old and Janie who is 11 years old.

2. When we bought our house we looked for a house in a neighborhood with a

lot of kids and schools in the area. The elementary school is one block away and

the junior and senior high schools are less than ten blocks away.

3. I think education is really important, but I didn't realize at that time that

public schools just aren't that good. That's why I've sent both of my kids to

private school. I went to public school and when I compare the education I

received with the type of education my friends got who went to private school, I

know I missed out. I make good money in my job and decided to have my

children go to private school. I want them to get the best education possible.

4. I am the office manager for Bowers & Jenkins, a law firm in Metro City,

New Columbia. I am responsible for interviewing, hiring and training all new

personnel.

5. Right now we are getting ready to expand our operation from twenty to

thirty people. We are now taking on a great number of part-time people, and in

about six months we will be having many of them on full-time.

6. Chris Moss came and applied for a mailroom position when news got out

about our expansion. I really like Chris a lot. Chris has a great personality and is

the type of individual who would get along great with the other employees. I was
Pg 20 of 53
Chris M. v. NCPSD and Preece
Developed by the D.C. Street Law Clinic at Georgetown University Law Center
 disappointed when I looked at Chris' job application. It was clear Chris had

difficulty filling it out. Chris' writing and reading skills are not that good, and

Chris could not adequately deal with our important mail functions.

7. I also found out Chris was fired from Hamburger King because Chris kept

messing up the change being given to customers. I need someone who has at least

basic academic skills. Applicants don't need to be college material, but they do

need some basic smarts. Lots of our employees move up the ranks to supervisory

positions. Chris wouldn't be able to do that. I doubt Chris would even be able to

do the basic operations required for the mailroom job.

8. We don't have any employees currently working at Bowers & Jenkins who

have gone to New Columbia public schools. When I first started working for

Bowers & Jenkins, I hired three people who had graduated from New Columbia

Senior High School. All three were also weak in reading and writing skills.

9. One person quit working after two months on the job. He got tired of the

commute. It's no fun having to train someone who leaves the job so soon. I had

to fire one of the other workers because she couldn't handle the job

responsibilities. The other person moved to another law firm where he is paid

more money. He's been working out fine.

This I swear under penalty of perjury.

Sydney Payne
Sydney Payne

Pg 21 of 53
Chris M. v. NCPSD and Preece
Developed by the D.C. Street Law Clinic at Georgetown University Law Center
 Affidavit of Dr. Terry Preece

School Superintendent, New Columbia School District

Witness for the Defense

1. My name is Dr. Terry Preece and I am the Superintendent of Schools for

New Columbia School District. I have a Ph.D. in Education and Supervision and

have been superintendent for the district for the past 12 years. Prior to that time I

was assistant superintendent for 7 years, a curriculum specialist for 3 years, a

principal of the senior high school for 4 years and an English teacher for 5 years.

All my work experience has been with the New Columbia School District.

2. I'm very proud of our school district. We have a good, traditional

educational system. Most of our teachers have been with the school district for

over 15 years and they know their job very well. From kindergarten through

twelfth grade, the students are exposed to a well-rounded curriculum. The basics,

such as reading, writing and arithmetic, are taught. We also have strong social

studies, science and vocational training programs.

3. Three years ago we implemented a program in which all students in the

district read for the first hour of every school day because we feel reading is so

important. In elementary school the students read from the basal reader series.

4. In junior and senior high school, they do independent reading, since by that

time, they have the basic skills for reading and we are concentrating on

comprehension and increasing their joy of reading. In junior and senior high

school, the students don't get a grade for the reading class and several of the

schools offer the class the hour before school officially begins. However, there

are enough teachers available for all the students who want to participate in the
Pg 22 of 53
Chris M. v. NCPSD and Preece
Developed by the D.C. Street Law Clinic at Georgetown University Law Center
 program.

5. Maybe if Chris had not been so lazy and had participated in the reading

program, Chris' skills would be better. Alex Lloyd is also a student in the twelfth

grade and has been attending New Columbia schools since kindergarten. Alex

did participate in the program and doesn't have any difficulty with reading skills.

The program has been successful, as demonstrated by the fact that the reading test

scores have gone up for those students who have participated in the program. The

average increase for students was a whole grade level.

6. We have a set curriculum in all subject areas that is used district-wide. Each

school has some flexibility in adding to the curriculum, but it does act as a

guideline and must be followed at a minimum. I'm proud to say that when I was

the curriculum specialist for the district, I designed the English (which included

reading) curriculum we are still using.

7. Our math curriculum includes the basic skills students need. They learn

how to add, subtract, multiply and divide. In the more advanced classes they also

learn algebra, geometry and trigonometry. We may not teach things like how to

make change, but that's something the students should be learning at home from

their parents.

8. We do offer a one-semester course in the high school called Life Skills. In

this class, students learn how to fill out a job application, go on job interviews,

balance a checkbook and maintain a family budget. Chris took this class, but

received a D. Chris was absent from the class quite a bit. Maybe if Chris had

attended the class every day there wouldn't have been this problem with filling out

job applications.

Pg 23 of 53
Chris M. v. NCPSD and Preece
Developed by the D.C. Street Law Clinic at Georgetown University Law Center
9. Evaluations of students are done in several ways. Report cards are

distributed four times a year and deficiency notices are sent to all parents mid-

quarter if their child is failing a class. Report cards in elementary and junior high

school must be returned to school signed by the parent(s).

10. In the senior high we mail the report cards to the home. Parent/teacher

conferences are held twice a year. We close the schools for a day and parents can

sign up for a conference with the teacher during the school day. We also have an

open house at all the schools within six weeks of the opening of school. This is

held in the afternoon and parents get to see what their children's classes are

actually like.

11. Parents are encouraged to visit the school and talk to the teachers at any

time. Of course, we can't pull teachers from the classroom to talk to parents, but

we do take messages and teachers will call parents back.

12. We feel it's important for the family to take some of the responsibility for

their child's education, so we encourage parents to be actively involved in the

schools. We use parent volunteers and they do fundraising for the schools. We

don't have much patience for these parents who just send their kids to school

without checking what's going on. They are just so irresponsible.

13. We also evaluate the students with standardized tests that we administer in

the fifth and eighth grades. Chris' scores in fifth grade were barely at grade level.

In eighth grade Chris missed the exams due to declining attendance and the tests

were never made up. Chris and Chris' mother, through a written notice, knew it

was Chris' responsibility to make up the test after school within 30 days, but they

did nothing.

Pg 24 of 53
Chris M. v. NCPSD and Preece
Developed by the D.C. Street Law Clinic at Georgetown University Law Center
 14. Chris Moss has a fairly decent record in school. Chris received satisfactory

grades in elementary school and Chris' attendance was good. In junior and senior

high school Chris started to miss quite a bit of school and Chris' grades seemed to

reflect this fact. Although Chris passed all classes, it was with low grades. A

concerned parent should have been at the school questioning what was happening.

Chris' mother never came to the school.

15. Alex's attendance has been good all through school. Alex has barely missed

any classes. If Alex was absent there was always a note from home upon return

to school. This way it was an excused absence. In elementary school, Alex

received satisfactory grades and passed all classes in junior and senior high

school. Alex has been present for all standardized tests and has continuously

performed at grade level.

16. We clearly cannot do the job of educating our youth on our own. It has to

be a team effort. Students need to work hard in school and parents need to

participate in their child's education or the system won't work. It is not the

school's job to get Chris a job. The best we can do is to provide each student the

opportunity to learn. You can't say the schools have failed Chris, but rather that

Chris and Chris' mother must take responsibility for low grades and the lack of

academic ability.

This I swear under penalty of perjury.

Dr. Terry Preece

Dr. Terry Preece

Pg 25 of 53
Chris M. v. NCPSD and Preece
Developed by the D.C. Street Law Clinic at Georgetown University Law Center
 Affidavit of Leslie Brown

Teacher, New Columbia Senior High School

Witness for the Defense

1. My name is Leslie Brown. I have a B.A. degree in secondary education and

I am certified to teach English and Social Studies in the state of New Columbia. I

have been a teacher in the New Columbia School District for the past four years.

I teach social studies at New Columbia Senior High School. Chris Moss was in

one of my social studies classes last year.

2. In my classes, I try to meet the individual needs of students. I like to see

students reach their potential. For that reason my classroom activities are

designed to help students succeed. We do a lot of small group activities, role-

plays, mock trials, discussions and debates. I have students in the class at various

levels. Some have difficulties with reading, others with writing, and others lack

verbal skills. I try to set up the activities so all students can participate regardless

of what level they are on. For example, before we do a role-play, I'll have a good

student read parts out loud. This way, if students aren't capable of reading the

material, they can still know what is going on.

I do the same things with evaluations.

3. There are several components to a student's grade. Attendance, class

participation, homework, test scores and alternative grade activities all make up

the grade. I give homework assignments on a regular basis. Students receive

credit for just handing the homework in. A good job on the homework gets extra

credit. I don't penalize those students who do not do their homework correctly. I

want to encourage them to at least try and do their homework.

Pg 26 of 53
Chris M. v. NCPSD and Preece
Developed by the D.C. Street Law Clinic at Georgetown University Law Center
4. Tests are made up of multiple choice, fill in the blank, true/false, short

answer and essay questions. Before each test, I review the material that will be

covered by the test. In addition, I read the questions from the test out loud so I

can be sure all the students understand the questions. A student can pass the test

if he or she gets all the multiple choice, true/false, fill in the blank and short

answer questions right.

5. Sometimes I don't give a regular exam for student grades. I use alternative

grading methods. For example, often the students get to participate in a mock

trial. They have to prepare for it and I grade them on their preparation and their

actual participation. I give the students a sheet that indicates how I will grade

them on each aspect and what skills I am looking for in their work. This gives

students an opportunity to pull up their grades if they don't do well on tests.

6. The school's policy is to pass students whenever possible. The principal

gives a pep talk at the beginning of each school year. We are told all students

should be helped to meet their potential. Our learning program and evaluation

system should be designed to help students progress to the best of their ability.

7. Chris is a very personable and likeable student. Chris often participates in

class and offers good ideas in class discussions. I would have liked to see Chris

do more homework, but at least Chris was usually in class and participated. Chris

has opinions about everything and never hesitates to voice them. It adds a lot to

the class.

8. Chris isn't a very good test taker; his written work was poor and the test

grades reflected this. Most of the grades were Ds and there were a couple of Cs.

However, Chris did do well on special projects. Last year Chris was a witness in

Pg 27 of 53
Chris M. v. NCPSD and Preece
Developed by the D.C. Street Law Clinic at Georgetown University Law Center
 our mock trial and won an award for best witness in the citywide competition. If

the work is interesting and someone works with Chris, the level of work produced

is very good.

This I swear under penalty of perjury.

Leslie Brown
Leslie Brown

Pg 28 of 53
Chris M. v. NCPSD and Preece
Developed by the D.C. Street Law Clinic at Georgetown University Law Center
 Affidavit of Alex Lloyd

Student, New Columbia Senior High School

Witness for the Defense

1. My name is Alex Lloyd and I am 17 years old. I am a senior at New

Columbia High School and have been attending New Columbia public schools

since I was five. I live with my mother and stepfather in a two-bedroom

apartment at 2300 14th Street, apartment number 5, Metro City. I live in the same

apartment building as Chris. My mother and stepfather both work. They do take

time to check my schoolwork and usually at least one of them goes to the school

for parent teacher conferences and open houses.

2. My attendance at school is very good. My mother doesn't let me stay home

from school. Sometimes I don't feel like going, especially when it’s snowing or

something, but I know I would be in a lot of trouble if I didn't go to school.

3. My school average is about a C. I could probably do better but I only work

hard in those classes I really like. I have been going to the reading program that

was started three years ago. I was encouraged to do so by Ms. Gomez, the school

counselor. She said my reading scores on my eighth grade standardized tests

were low. It seems to have helped my reading ability. My reading level has

increased and schoolwork has become a little easier.

4. I started working on the weekends and after school last year. I wanted to get

some work experience so it would be easier for me to get a job after I graduated

from school. I've been working in a department store that offered me a full-time

job when I graduate. I didn't have any problems getting a job. I took my time and

carefully filled out the job application at several places. When I took the Life

Pg 29 of 53
Chris M. v. NCPSD and Preece
Developed by the D.C. Street Law Clinic at Georgetown University Law Center
 Skills course at school, I learned how to handle myself in an interview. That

made it easier when I went to apply for real jobs.

5. Chris and I used to be good friends. We've known each other for a long

time but we hang out with different crowds. Chris likes to party a lot and doesn't

always go to school. If I stayed out of school as much as Chris or didn't do my

homework like Chris, my mother and stepfather would kill me. They would

never let me get away with stuff like that.

6. It's important to go to school. You get a chance to do extra stuff when

you're at school all the time. For example, there's a trip coming up this spring to

Williamsburg, Virginia, and I was one of ten students selected because of good

attendance. We're going to visit historical landmarks, go to an amusement park,

visit a college campus and get to go to a big party. It really sounds like fun.

This I swear under penalty of perjury.

Alex Lloyd
Alex Lloyd

Pg 30 of 53
Chris M. v. NCPSD and Preece
Developed by the D.C. Street Law Clinic at Georgetown University Law Center
 Chris M. v. NCPSD
OFFICIAL EXHIBITS
A. Chris Moss Application for Bowers and Jenkins

B. New Columbia New Columbia Senior High School, Progress Report For
Chris Moss, Grade 5

C. New Columbia New Columbia Senior High School, Progress Report For
Chris Moss, Grade 8

D. New Columbia New Columbia Senior High School, Progress Report For
Chris Moss, Grade 11

Pg 31 of 53
Chris M. v. NCPSD and Preece
Developed by the D.C. Street Law Clinic at Georgetown University Law Center
 BOWERS & JENKINS
6430 Placida Boulevard
Suite 300
Metro City, New Columbia, 019881

JOB APPLICATION

PART I: Personal Information

FULL NAME: Chris Moss

ADDRESS: 2300 14th Street

CITY: Metro City STATE: New Columbia ZIP: 01920

SOC. SEC#: 105-85-9738 DATE OF BIRTH: 03/20/82

TELEPHONE: 546-1082 POSITION DESIRED: Mail Clerk

List highest educational level you have attained and list all schools that you have
attended:

Highest Educational Level Attained: 12th Grade

Schools Attended: New Columbia Hi School

New Columbia Jr. Hi School
New Columbia Grade School

What was your grade point average at each of the schools you listed?

C-
C
C+

List your previous four jobs:

Hamburger King, Cashier

What special skills do you possess?

What days and what hours are you available to work?

Mon too Fri
9 too 5

Pg 32 of 53
Chris M. v. NCPSD and Preece
Developed by the D.C. Street Law Clinic at Georgetown University Law Center
How did you find out about his position?
Newspaper

PART II: Skills Evaluation

Alphabetize the following by last name:

James Ingram, Sally Rodant, Graham Chapman, Loretta Rodriguez, Trevor Roe,
Dwayne McIntosh, Terrell Ford, Justin Brooks, Alexander Mars, Marc Elias,
Garland Chapman, Corey Lawton, Regina Howell, Mike Montana, Yvonne
Alexander

James Ingram Dwayne McIntosh Garland Chapman

Sally Rodant Terrell Ford Corey Lawton
Graham Chapman Justin Brooks Regina Howell
Brenda Rodriguez Alexander Mars Mike Montana
Trevor Roe Marc Elias Yvonne Alexander

Organize the following zip codes numerically:

02210, 14211, 20001, 92069, 01224, 10012, 13323, 14321, 13598, 48201, 96065,
22201, 20036, 12350, 14222, 22301

02210 13323 14222 48201

01224 14321 20001 92069
14211 13598 22201 96065
10012 12350 22301

Please solve the following problem.

Imagine that you are responsible for placing a postage stamp on each piece of
mail that goes out of the mail room. You receive: three letters from Mr. Hundleby's
office, four from Mr. Thompson, seventeen from Mr. Jareau, six from Ms. Harrison, and
one from Mrs. Jones.
Before you have stamped these letters, Mr. Jarreau rushes into the mail room to
say that he did not want to send four of his letters and takes these letters back to his
office.

How many stamps do you need?

28 31 30

Pg 33 of 53
Chris M. v. NCPSD and Preece
Developed by the D.C. Street Law Clinic at Georgetown University Law Center
I represent and warrant that I have read and fully understand the foregoing and
seek employment under these conditions:

APPLICANT: Chris Moss

Pg 34 of 53
Chris M. v. NCPSD and Preece
Developed by the D.C. Street Law Clinic at Georgetown University Law Center
 NEW COLUMBIA PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT
New Columbia Senior High School
REPORT OF PUPIL PROGRESS
GRADE SUMMARY

Pupil: Chris Moss School: New Columbia Elementary School

I.D. Number: 186-4546-21 Grade: 5
School Year: 2000 - 2001 Teacher: Walker

Dear Parent,
You are encouraged to confer regularly and maintain close contact with your
child's teacher.

GRADING SCALE: A B C D U
100-93 92-85 84-78 77-70 Below
70
SUBJECT Advisory Advisory Advisory Advisory Final
One Two Three Four Grade
SCIENCE B- B- B C+ B-
MATHEMATICS C+ C+ C C C
SOCIAL STUDIES B- B B B+ B
ENGLISH B- C C- C C
READING B- C+ C+ C+ C+
HEALTH/PHYS. ED. B- B- B B- B-
ART A B B A B+
MUSIC C+ C+ C+ C+ C+
ATTENDANCE Advisory Advisory Advisory Advisory Final
RECORD One Two Three Four Grade
TIMES TARDY 1 1 0 1 3
DAYS ABSENT 0 1 0 0 1
Teacher Comments: (Advisory 1): Teacher Comments: (Advisory 2):

Teacher Comments: (Advisory 3): Teacher Comments: (Advisory 4): Chris has
been doing very well in school but seems to
have difficulty with reading.

STANDARDIZED TEST SCORES

IOWA TESTS: 5th Grade 4.0 8th Grade INCOMPLETE

Pg 35 of 53
Chris M. v. NCPSD and Preece
Developed by the D.C. Street Law Clinic at Georgetown University Law Center
 NEW COLUMBIA PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT
REPORT OF PUPIL PROGRESS
GRADE SUMMARY

Pupil: Chris Moss School: New Columbia Junior High

I.D. Number: 186-4546-21 Grade: 8
School Year: 2003 - 2004 Teacher: Jenkins

Dear Parent,
You are encouraged to confer regularly and maintain close contact with your
child's teacher.

GRADING SCALE: A B C D U
100-93 92-85 84-78 77-70 Below
70

SUBJECT Advisory Advisory Advisory Advisory Final

One Two Three Four Grade
SCIENCE C- C+ C C+ C
MATHEMATICS
C C C C C
SOCIAL STUDIES
C+ C C+ C C+
ENGLISH D D C C C-
READING C+ C+ C C- C
HEALTH/PHYS. ED.
B C+ C B B-
ART B B B+ B B-
MUSIC C C- C C+ C
ATTENDANCE
Advisory Advisory Advisory Advisory Final
RECORD
One Two Three Four Grade
TIMES TARDY
1 1 2 1 5
DAYS ABSENT
2 4 5 10 21
Teacher Comments: (Advisory 1): Teacher Comments: (Advisory 2):

Teacher Comments: (Advisory 3): Chris did Teacher Comments: (Advisory 4):
not appear for the standardized test and
needs to make it up within 30 days

STANDARDIZED TEST SCORES

IOWA TESTS: 5th Grade 4.0 8th Grade:

INCOMPLETE
Pg 36 of 53
Chris M. v. NCPSD and Preece
Developed by the D.C. Street Law Clinic at Georgetown University Law Center
 NEW COLUMBIA PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT
REPORT OF PUPIL PROGRESS
GRADE SUMMARY

Pupil: Chris Moss School: New Columbia Senior High

I.D. Number: 186-4546-21 Grade: 11

School Year: 2006 - 2007 Teacher: Brown

Dear Parent,
You are encouraged to confer regularly and maintain close contact with your
child's teacher.

GRADING SCALE: A B C D U
100-93 92-85 84-78 77-70 Below
70

SUBJECT Advisory Advisory Advisory Advisory Final

One Two Three Four Grade
SCIENCE D+ D C- D+ D+
MATHEMATICS C- D+ D D+ D+
SOCIAL STUDIES C C A C C+
ENGLISH D+ D D D+ D+
READING C C+ C+ C C+
HEALTH/PHYS. ED. B B C+ C+ C+
ART B B B- B B
MUSIC C C C- C C+
ATTENDANCE Advisory Advisory Advisory Advisory Final
RECORD One Two Three Four Grade
TIMES TARDY 10 3 7 3 23
DAYS ABSENT 7 7 10 12 36
Teacher Comments: (Advisory 1): Chris was absent Teacher Comments: (Advisory 2): Chris
too many times this semester. The grades suffered as a has trouble completing reading
result. assignments.
Teacher Comments: (Advisory 3): Teacher Comments: (Advisory 4):

STANDARDIZED TEST SCORES

IOWA TESTS: 5th Grade 4.0 8th Grade INCOMPLETE

Pg 37 of 53
Chris M. v. NCPSD and Preece
Developed by the D.C. Street Law Clinic at Georgetown University Law Center
 Pg 38 of 53
Chris M. v. NCPSD and Preece
Developed by the D.C. Street Law Clinic at Georgetown University Law Center
 2008 MOCK TRIAL
TOURNAMENT RULES

Pg 39 of 53
Chris M. v. NCPSD and Preece
Developed by the D.C. Street Law Clinic at Georgetown University Law Center
The annual Mock Trial Tournament is governed by the rules set forth below. These rules
are designed to ensure excellence in presentation and fairness in judging all trials.

TEAM PRESENTATIONS

1. The official mock trial materials, consisting of the Statement of Stipulated Facts,
Witness Statements, Relevant Statutes and Case Law, and Pieces of Evidence,
comprise the sole source of information for testimony. The Stipulated Facts and
any additional stipulations may not be disputed at trial.

2. Each witness is bound by the facts in the given witness statement. All
participants agree that the witness statements are signed and sworn affidavits.
Witness Statements may not be introduced as evidence, but may be used for
impeachment.

Fair additions which (a) are consistent with facts contained in the witness
affidavits and (b) do not materially give an advantage to the testifying party are
permitted. If a witness is asked a question on cross-examination which is not
dealt with in the witness's statement, the witness may invent an answer favorable
to that witness's position.

Students may read other cases, materials, or articles in preparation for the mock
trial. However, they may only cite the materials given, and they may only
introduce into evidence those documents given in the official mock trial packet.

3. If a witness testifies in contradiction of a fact in the witness statement during

direct examination, there is no objection for “violating the rules of the mock
trial.” The opposition must show the contradiction on cross-examination through
correct use of the affidavit for impeachment. If a witness testifies in contradiction
of a fact on cross-examination, the cross examining attorney should show the
contradiction through impeachment also. This procedure is spelled out in the
Simplified Rules of Evidence.

4. If on direct examination witness invents an answer which is likely to affect the

outcome of the trial, the opposition should show this on cross-examination
through correct use of the affidavit for impeachment. This procedure is spelled
out in the Simplified Rules of Evidence. The scorers should consider such
inventions of facts in scoring the witness’ presentation.

5. Witnesses are not permitted to use notes in testifying during the trial.

6. All participants are expected to display proper courtroom decorum and collegial
sportsmanlike conduct. The decisions of the judges with regard to rules
challenges and all other decisions are final.

7. The trial proceedings are governed by the Simplified Rules of Evidence. Other
more complex rules may not be raised in the trial.

Pg 40 of 53
Chris M. v. NCPSD and Preece
Developed by the D.C. Street Law Clinic at Georgetown University Law Center
8. During the actual trial, teachers, attorneys, other coaches, affiliated non-
participating team members, parents and all other observers may not talk to,
signal, or otherwise communicate with or coach their teams. Team members may
communicate with each other during the trial. Instructors from opposing teams
are advised to sit next to one another, if possible, and be reasonable. The purpose
of this rule is to prevent last minute coaching; it is not intended as a device to
disqualify an opposing team.

9. Neither team may introduce surprise witnesses nor call witnesses from the other
side. All witnesses (three for each side) must take the stand, in whatever order or
sequence determined by the party calling them.

10. Witnesses will not be excluded from the courtroom during the trial.

11. All teams in the tournament must consist of from three to eight attorneys, and
three witnesses. Exceptions may be made by the D.C. Street Law Clinic after
consultation.

12. Only students registered in their high school for the Street Law class as of
February 07, 2008 will be eligible to participate in the Mock Trial Tournament
unless otherwise approved by the Director.

13. Teams are expected to be present at the Superior Court for the District of
Columbia by 5:30 p.m. the days of the trials. Trials will begin at 6 p.m.

14. The starting time of any trial will not be delayed for longer than 15 minutes.
Incomplete teams will have to begin without their other members, or with
alternates.

JUDGING

1. Presiding judges for the mock trials may include Judges and Commissioners of
the District of Columbia, law school faculty, members of the D.C. Bar, other
attorneys, or others approved by the Director.

2. All judges receive the Guidelines for Judges, Judge’s Score Sheet, the Simplified
Rules of Evidence, and the Mock Trial Packet.

3. Presiding judges are asked to make a legal decision on the merits of the case, but
this does not affect a team’s score. The decision on team scores is made by a
scoring panel, consisting of two or more scorers selected by the Street Law Staff
and, in some instances, the presiding judge. The criteria for scoring are discussed
in the Guidelines for Scorers and the Score Sheet.

4. All decisions of the judges are final.

Pg 41 of 53
Chris M. v. NCPSD and Preece
Developed by the D.C. Street Law Clinic at Georgetown University Law Center
[This Page Intentionally Left Blank]

Pg 42 of 53
Chris M. v. NCPSD and Preece
Developed by the D.C. Street Law Clinic at Georgetown University Law Center
SIMPLIFIED RULES OF
EVIDENCE

Pg 43 of 53
Chris M. v. NCPSD and Preece
Developed by the D.C. Street Law Clinic at Georgetown University Law Center
To assure each side a fair trial, certain rules have been developed to govern the types of
evidence that may be introduced, as well as the manner in which evidence may be
presented. These rules are called the "rules of evidence." The attorneys and the judge are
responsible for enforcing these rules. Before the judge can apply a rule of evidence, an
attorney must ask the judge to do so. Attorneys do this by making "objections" to the
evidence or procedure employed by the opposing side. When an objection is raised, the
attorney who asked the question that is being challenged will usually is asked by the
judge why the question was not in violation of the rules of evidence.

The rules of evidence used in real trials can be very complicated. A few of the most
important rules of evidence have been adapted for mock trial purposes, and these are
presented below.

Rule 1. Leading Questions:

A "leading" question is one that suggests the answer desired by the questioner, usually by
stating some facts not previously discussed and then asking the witness to give a yes or
no answer.

Example: "So, Mr. Smith, you took Ms. Jones to a movie that night,
didn't you?"

Leading questions may not be asked on direct or redirect examination. Leading questions
may be used on cross-examination.

Objection: "Objection, Your Honor, counsel is leading the witness."

Possible Response: "Your Honor, leading is permissible on cross-examination,"

or "I'll rephrase the question." For example, the question
can be rephrased: "Mr. Smith, where did you go that night?
With whom did you go to the movies?" (This would not
suggest the answer the attorney desires.)

Rule 2. Narration:
Narration occurs when the witness provides more information than the question called
for.

Example: Question - "What did you do when you reached the front door of
the house?"
Witness - "I opened the door and walked into the kitchen. I was
afraid that he was in the house -- you know, he had been acting
quite strangely the day before."

Witnesses' answers must respond to the questions. A narrative answer is

objectionable.

Pg 44 of 53
Chris M. v. NCPSD and Preece
Developed by the D.C. Street Law Clinic at Georgetown University Law Center
 Objection: "Objection, Your Honor, the witness is narrating."
Response: "Your Honor, the witness is telling us a complete sequence of events."

Rule 3. Relevance:
Questions and answers must relate to the subject matter of the case; this is called
"relevance." Questions or answers that do not relate to the case are "irrelevant."

Example: (In a traffic accident case) "Mrs. Smith, how many times have you been
married?"

Irrelevant questions or answers are objectionable.

Objection: "Your Honor, this question is irrelevant to this case."

Response: "Your Honor, this series of questions will show that Mrs. Smith's first
husband was killed in an auto accident, and this fact has increased her
mental suffering in this case."

Rule 4. Hearsay:
"Hearsay" is something the witness has heard someone say outside the courtroom. Also,
any written statement made outside the courtroom is hearsay.

Example: "Harry told me that he was going to visit Mr. Brown."

Hearsay evidence is objectionable. However, there are two exceptions to the hearsay
rule for purposes of the mock trial. If an exception applies, the court will allow hearsay
evidence to be introduced. Exception: In a mock trial, hearsay evidence is allowed
when the witness is repeating a statement made directly to the witness by one of the
witnesses in the case. Hearsay is also allowed if one of the witnesses is repeating a
statement made by an individual who is no longer alive.

Note that this exception to the hearsay rule does not extend to witness testimony about
what another person heard a witness say. This is "double hearsay."

Example: Mary, the plaintiff, told me that Harry, the defendant was drunk the night
of the accident.
Objection: "Objection, Your Honor, this is double hearsay."
Response: "Your Honor, since Harry is the defendant, the witness can testify to a
statement he heard Harry make."

For mock trials, other exceptions to the hearsay rule are not used.

Rule 5. Firsthand Knowledge:

Pg 45 of 53
Chris M. v. NCPSD and Preece
Developed by the D.C. Street Law Clinic at Georgetown University Law Center
Witnesses must have directly seen, heard, or experienced whatever it is they are testifying
about. A lack of firsthand knowledge is objectionable.

Example: "I saw Harry drink two beers that night. I know Harry well enough to
know that two beers usually make him drunk, and he seemed drunk that
night, too."
Objection: "Your Honor, the witness has no firsthand knowledge of Harry's condition
that night."
Response: "The witness is just generally describing her usual and actual experience
with Harry."

Rule 6. Opinions:
Unless a witness is qualified as an expert in the appropriate field, such as medicine or
ballistics, the witness may not give an opinion about matters relating to that field.
Opinions are objectionable unless given by an expert qualified in the appropriate
field.

Example: (Said by a witness who is not a doctor) “The doctor put my cast on wrong.
That's why I have a limp now."
Objection: "Objection, Your Honor, the witness is giving an opinion."
Response: "Your Honor, the witness may answer the question because ordinary
persons can judge whether a cast was put on correctly."
Ruling: A judge will likely sustain this objection because it may not be within an
ordinary person’s knowledge to know whether an incorrectly placed cast
will cause a limp.

As an exception to this rule, a lay witness may give an opinion based on common
experience.

Example: "It looked to me like Harry was drunk that night. I’ve seen him drunk and
have seen other drunks before.”
Objection: "Objection, Your Honor, the witness is giving an opinion."
Response: "Your Honor, the witness may answer the question because ordinary
persons may judge whether or not a person appeared drunk based on the
witness’ experience."

Rule 7. Opinions on the Ultimate Issue:

Witnesses, including experts, cannot give opinions on the ultimate issue of the case: the
guilt or innocence of the defendant or the liability of the parties. These are matters for
the trier of fact to decide.

Example: "I believe that Mr. Smith was negligent in driving too fast in this case."

Opinions on the ultimate issue in a case are objectionable.

Pg 46 of 53
Chris M. v. NCPSD and Preece
Developed by the D.C. Street Law Clinic at Georgetown University Law Center
 Objection: "Your Honor, the witness is giving an opinion on the ultimate issue – the
negligence of Mr. Smith."
Response: "The witness is commenting that the driver was speeding. This is not the
ultimate issue in this case."

Rule 8. Additional Rules of Evidence:

1. Objections during the testimony of a witness must be made only by the direct
examining and cross-examining attorneys for that witness.

2. Cross-examination is not limited to the scope of direct questioning.

3. A short redirect examination, limited to no more than two questions, will be

allowed following cross-examination, if an attorney desires. Questions on
redirection are limited to the scope of the cross-examination.

4. If an attorney (on direct or cross-examination) repeatedly asks a witness to discuss

the exact same matter, opposing counsel may object to the question as being
“asked and answered.” It is in the court’s interest to have the trial move along in
a timely manner.

5. Witnesses must be treated with respect by opposing counsel. If an attorney

continuously, and for no valid trial or evidentiary purpose, takes a disrespectful
tone with the witness, the opposing counsel may object that the questioning
attorney is “badgering the witness.”

Rule 9. Special Procedures:

Procedure 1. Introduction of Documents or Physical Evidence:

Sometimes the parties wish to offer as evidence letters, affidavits, contracts, or other
documents, or even physical evidence such as a murder weapon, broken consumer goods,
etc. Special procedures must be followed before these items can be used in trial.

Step 1: Introducing the Item for Identification

a. An attorney says to the judge, "Your Honor, I wish to have this (letter, document,
item) marked for identification as (Plaintiff's Exhibit A, Defense Exhibit 1, etc.)."
b. The attorney takes the item to the clerk, who marks it appropriately.
c. The attorney shows the item to the opposing counsel.
d. The attorney shows the item to the witness and says, "Do you recognize this item
marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit A?"
Witness: "Yes."
Attorney: "Can you please identify this item?"

Pg 47 of 53
Chris M. v. NCPSD and Preece
Developed by the D.C. Street Law Clinic at Georgetown University Law Center
 Witness: "This is a letter I wrote to John Doe on September 1." (Or witness gives
other appropriate identification.)
e. The attorney may then proceed to ask the witness questions about the document
or item.

Step 2. Moving the Document or Item into Evidence.

If the attorney wishes the judge or jury to consider the document or item itself as part of
the evidence and not just as testimony about it, the attorney must ask to move the item
into evidence at the end of the witness examination. The attorney proceeds as follows:

a. The attorney says, "Your Honor, I offer this (document/item) into evidence as
Plaintiff's Exhibit A, and ask that the court so admit it."
b. Opposing counsel may look at the evidence and make objections at this time.
c. The judge rules on whether the item may be admitted into evidence.

Procedure 2. Impeachment

On cross-examination, an attorney wants to show that the witness should not be believed.
This is best accomplished through a process called "impeachment," which may use one of
the following tactics: (1) asking questions about prior conduct of the witness that makes
the witness' truthfulness doubtful (e.g., "Isn't it true that you once lost a job because you
falsified expense reports?"); (2) asking about evidence of certain types of criminal
convictions (e.g., "You were convicted of shoplifting, weren't you?"); or (3) showing that
the witness has contradicted a prior statement, particularly one made by the witness in an
affidavit. Witness statements in the Mock Trials Materials are considered to be
affidavits.

In order to impeach the witness by comparing information in the affidavit to the witness'
testimony, attorneys should use this procedure:

Step 1: Repeat the statement the witness made on direct or cross-examination that
contradicts the affidavit.

Example: "Now, Mrs. Burke, on direct examination you testified that you were out of
town on the night in question, didn't you?" (Witness responds, "Yes.")

Step 2: Introduce the affidavit for identification, using the procedure described in
Procedure 1.
Step 3: Ask the witness to read from his or her affidavit the part that contradicts
the statement made on direct examination.

Example: "All right, Mrs. Burke, will you read paragraph three?" (Witness reads, "Harry
and I decided to stay in town and go to the theater.")

Pg 48 of 53
Chris M. v. NCPSD and Preece
Developed by the D.C. Street Law Clinic at Georgetown University Law Center
 Step 4: Dramatize the conflict in the statements. (Remember, the point of this line
of questioning is to demonstrate the contradiction in the statements, not to
determine whether Mrs. Burke was in town or out of town.)

Example: "So, Mrs. Burke, you testified that you were out of town on the night in
question, didn't you?" "Yes." "Yet, in your affidavit you said you were in town, didn't
you?" "Yes."

Note: For an impeachment for a contradictory prior statement, the point is that because
the witness has made two contradictory statements about a matter, the witness may not be
believable on that matter. The contradiction also may cast doubt on the witness’
truthfulness, generally. Impeachment does NOT disprove a statement; it only casts doubt
on either statement.

Procedure 3. Qualifying an Expert

Only a witness who is qualified as an expert may give an opinion as to scientific,

technical, or other specialized knowledge in the area of his/her expertise. (Note: A lay
witness may give an opinion about something related to one's common experience

(see Rule 6) Experts cannot give opinions on the ultimate issue of the case.

Before an expert gives his/her expert opinion on a matter, the lawyer must first qualify
the expert. There are two steps to qualify an expert. First, the lawyer must lay a
foundation that shows the expert is qualified to testify on issues related to that expert's
field of expertise. To lay a foundation, the lawyer asks the expert to describe factors such
as schooling, professional training, work experience and books he/she has written that
make a person an expert regarding a particular field. Second, once the witness has
testified about his/her qualifications, the lawyer asks the judge to qualify the witness as
an expert in a particular field.

Example: The wife of Harold Hart is suing Dr. Smith and General Hospital for
malpractice. She claims they did not treat Mr. Hart for an obvious heart attack when he
was brought to the hospital. Mrs. Hart's lawyer is examining his expert witness, Dr.
Jones:

Q: Dr. Jones, what is your occupation?

A: I am a heart surgeon. I am Chief of Staff at the Howard University Medical
Center.
Q: What medical school did you attend?
A: I graduated from Georgetown Medical School in 1978.
Q: Where did you do your internship?
A: I did a two-year internship in cardiology at John Hopkins University from 1978-
1980.
Q: Did you afterwards specialize in any particular field of medicine?
A: Yes, I specialized in heart attack treatment and heart surgery.
Pg 49 of 53
Chris M. v. NCPSD and Preece
Developed by the D.C. Street Law Clinic at Georgetown University Law Center
 Q: Have you published any articles or books?
A: I wrote a chapter in a medical text on heart surgery procedures after heart attacks.
Q: Describe the chapter.
A: I set out the steps for identifying heart attacks and doing open heart surgery.
Q: What professional licenses do you have?
A: I am certified by the D.C. Board of Medical Examiners to practice medicine in
D.C.

Attorney #1: Your Honor, I ask that Dr. Jones be qualified as an expert in the field of
medicine.
Judge: Any objection?
Attorney #2: We object. No foundation has been laid regarding Dr. Jones's ability to
render an opinion as to all fields of medicine.
Judge: Objection sustained. Dr. Jones's expertise seems to be limited to certain areas
of medicine.
Attorney #1: Thank you, your Honor. We ask that Dr. Jones be qualified as an expert in
the field of heart surgery.
Judge: Any objections?
Attorney #2: No, your Honor.
Judge: Let the record reflect that Dr. Jones is qualified to testify as an expert in
the field of heart surgery.

Once qualified, an expert may give opinions relating only to the expert's area of
expertise. That is, an expert cannot give an opinion in an area outside his/her expertise.

Example: (Dr. Jones has been qualified as an expert on heart surgery.)

Q: Dr. Jones, what is your opinion as to Mr. Hart's cause of death?

A: The patient suffered a massive heart attack caused by clogged arteries.
Q: Dr. Jones, in your opinion, is it true as the defense contends that the patient also
suffering from a rare lung disease transmitted through contact with the North
American mongoose as the defense contends?

Objection: The witness is testifying outside her area of expertise.

Judge: Sustained. Please confine your opinion to matters related to care and
treatment of the heart.

Q: Dr. Jones, in your opinion, how should the patient's doctors have treated him?
A: They should have recognized that the patient was having a heart attack based on
his chest pains, purple face, difficulty breathing, and numbness in his left arm.
They should have given him the proper medication and treated him in the
emergency room right away.
Q: Who was at fault in this matter?
A: Dr. Smith and General Hospital were definitely negligent.

Pg 50 of 53
Chris M. v. NCPSD and Preece
Developed by the D.C. Street Law Clinic at Georgetown University Law Center
Objection: The witness is testifying to the ultimate issue of the case, which is whether
Dr. Smith and General Hospital are liable for malpractice. That is a
question of fact for the judge (or jury, when the case is tried before a jury)
to decide.
Judge: Sustained.

Pg 51 of 53
Chris M. v. NCPSD and Preece
Developed by the D.C. Street Law Clinic at Georgetown University Law Center
Special Thanks to:
Algie Said

Amrutha Nanjappa

Erika Woods

Takeisha Roach

Norman Schneider

Vincent Forte

Sherry Kaiser

Ellen Marcus

Olisaemeka Anwah

Eric Charleston

Sarah Medway

Minuteman Press