1

LOYOLA  TRIAL  ADVOCACY  PROGRAM  FALL  2012  ARGUE  ON  COMPETITION  APPLICATION  Please  complete  this  application  and  submit  it  along  with  a  copy  of  your  Fall  2012  

academic/work  schedule  in  the  Trial  Advocacy  mailbox  in  the  new  Student  Lounge  by  Sunday,  September  16th,  2012  at  8pm.    

You  will  be  notified  via  email  of  your  assigned  time  slot  for  the  Argue  On  Competition.  

If  you  have  any  questions,  please  do  not  hesitate  to  contact  trialad@loyno.edu        

Applicant  Name:                        

Hometown:                          

Loyola  Email:                        

Cell  Phone  Number:                      

GPA:             Class  Year/Division:              Short  Questions:  

In   a   few   short   sentences,   tell   us   why   you   want   to   join   the   Trial   Advocacy   Program.  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     

2

Why  do  you  think  you  would  be  an  asset  to  the  Trial  Advocacy  Program?  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

Do   you   have   any   scheduling   conflicts   that   will   or   may   interfere   with   the   Argue   On  Competition?  If  so,  please  indicate/explain  the  conflict.  

                                                                                                                 

3

 

LOYOLA  UNIVERISTY  NEW  ORLEANS  COLLEGE  OF  LAW  

 

TRIAL  ADVOCACY  PROGRAM  

2012  ARGUE  ON  COMPETITION  

 

STATE  

v.  

LANE  MILES

4

Trial  Advocacy  Argue  On  Competition  

Trial  Advocacy  is  an  incredible  experience  that  can  only  better  your  law  career  and  help  you  as  you  progress  in  the  professional  world.  More  than  just  learning  the  art  of  the  courtroom,  Trial  Advocacy  will  teach  you  how  to  think,  process,  and  react  quickly  in  a  manner  that  translates  far  past  the  courtroom.  We  are  glad  you  have  considered  participating  in  the  Argue  On  Competition  and  look  forward  to  seeing  you.  Best  of  luck!  

-­‐Kelley  Escobar  Trial  Advocacy  President  

 BEFORE  ARGUE  ON  

• Turn  in  your  application  to  the  Trial  Ad  mailbox  folder  in  the  Student  Lounge  by  Sunday,  September  16th  at  8:00  PM.  You  will  then  be  notified  via  email  of  your  time  slot,  and  the  side  you  will  argue  (Prosecution  or  Defense)  

• The  Argue  On  competition  will  take  place  Friday,  September  21st,  Saturday,  September  22nd,  and  if  needed,  Sunday,  September  23rd.  Please  let  us  know  ASAP  of  any  extenuating  circumstances  that  will  require  you  to  argue  on  at  a  specific  time.  

 ARGUE  ON  PROCESS  

• Applicants  must  prepare  an  opening  statement,  no  more  than  8  minutes.  • Applicants  must  prepare  a  cross  examination  of  either  Les  Miles    (Prosecution),  or  Chris  

Knight  (Defense),  no  more  than  4  minutes.  •    Applicants  will  be  given  their  opening  and  cross  to  the  executive  board  who  will  then  

judge  the  applicant  based  on  their  advocacy  skills,  not  their  knowledge  or  “expertise”  of  the  substantive  law/issues  in  the  fact  pattern.  While  applicants  must  know  the  basic  facts  of  the  pattern/problem,  applicants  are  encouraged  to  focus  more  on  their  advocacy  skills  and  tactics  (speech,  voice,  tone,  gesture,  movement,  persuasion,  poise,  etc.)  instead  of  getting  bogged  down  with  minute  details.  

SELECTION  

• All  new  advocates  will  be  chosen  by  the  board  by  unanimous  decision,  and  the  new  advocate  list  will  be  posted  Monday,  September  24th  by  10:00  PM  on  the  3rd  floor  Trial  Ad  Board.  

 If  you  have  any  questions  or  concerns,  please  contact  trialad@loyno.edu  

 

5

Trial  Advocacy  Expectations  

 

As  a  potential  new  member  of  Trial  Advocacy,  you  will  be  expected  to  participate  in  the  Intramural  Competition.  The  program  and  board  have  worked  hard  over  the  years  to  put  in  place  a  system  to  teach  new  members  the  art  of  trial  and  the  corresponding  methods  and  tactics  that  go  with  it.  However,  gaining  the  confidence  of  these  skills  is  not  without  practice,  hard  work  and  dedication.  The  teaching  of  these  skills  does  not  come  without  those  virtues  either.  Therefore,  before  we  as  individuals  and  a  program  invest  time  and  effort  into  you,  as  a  potential  new  advocate,  we  ask  that  you  are  certain  of  and  willing  to  do  the  following:  

1. Have  a  positive  attitude  to  work  with  your  coaches,  take  criticism,  and  work  to  succeed.  2. Be  available  to  practice  with  your  team  at  least  3  times  a  week.  3. Be  available  to  practice  in  one  full  trial  a  week  with  your  team.  4. Study  and  seek  out  help  for  rules  and  aspects  of  trial  you  do  not  yet  fully  understand  5. Follow  up  with  your  schedule  and  your  coach  to  make  sure  you  are  signed  up  to  get  

class  credit    

Again,  please  contact  us  with  any  questions  or  concerns  at  trialad@loyno.edu    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6

Loyola University New Orleans College of Law

Trial Advocacy Program

2012 Argue On Competition

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

COUNTY OF ERIE STATE OF SOUTH LOYOLA

) ) State of South Loyola, ) Prosecution, ) ) Case No. v. ) CF-2006-101 ) Lane Miles, ) (Filed Nov.15, 2006) Defendant. ) ) ) NOTE: This case file was adapted from the South Carolina Mock Trial Competition case file with the

permission of the South Carolina Bar. All characters, names, events, places, and circumstances in this mock trial case are fictitious.

7

INTRODUCTION

The parties at “The Haunted House” were legendary at Nola University, especially the

Halloween party. Lane Miles, Shannon Phillips and Drew Harding had hosted several parties at their

house on Elm Street over the past four years. The biggest party each year was on Halloween, when a

hooded and masked figure dressed as the Grim Reaper would ominously distribute drinks to certain

guests at precisely midnight. The Grim Reaper became a staple at the Halloween parties and it always

seemed like one person got a little too “out of control” after the visit from the Reaper. The odd thing is, it

was always the one person everyone would least expect to lose control. Nevertheless, the antics

livened up the party. Little did everyone know that Lane Miles, Drew Harding and Shannon Phillips

were spiking one drink during the Reaper “prank” with MDMA, an illegal drug commonly referred to as

Ecstasy or X. Shannon knew where to buy the drug, Drew would make sure the mark would come to

the party and Lane would dress as the Grim Reaper and make sure to give the mark the spiked drink.

They would meet about a week before the party to decide who was going to get the drink.

The Halloween party on October 31, 2006, seemed to be like the last three Halloween parties at

the Haunted House. At midnight, the Grim Reaper entered the main room, passed out a few drinks and

then disappeared. The mark that night was Jason Richardson, a student everyone assumed to be

meek and shy – a “science geek.” Very shortly after drinking the cocktail, Jason suddenly and

horrifically dropped dead. After his death, it was discovered that Jason, while on the surface an ordinary

guy had, in reality, a very unsavory habit. After an investigation and questioning by Detective Chris

Knight, Lane Miles was charged with murder. Shannon pled guilty to simple possession and serving

alcohol to minors and agreed to testify for the state. Drew was not charged.

8

PLEADINGS

 

9

STATE OF SOUTH LOYOLA ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ) COUNTY OF ERIE ) THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT ) STATE OF SOUTH LOYOLA, ) ) ) Case No. CF – 2006-101 ) vs. ) (Filed November 15, 2006) ) LANE MILES, ) ) Defendant ) )

Pre-Trial Order

On this the 7th day of January, 2007, the above-captioned matter came before the

undersigned judge for pretrial conference on first stage issues. The Court has bi-furcated

the proceedings in this case into two stages in accordance with South Loyola law. The trial

of the first stage will address the issue of guilt or innocence. The trial of the second stage, if

necessary, will address the appropriate sentence for the crimes charged. The parties,

appearing through their counsel, indicated their agreement to, and approval of, the terms of

this Order, and requested that it be made the Order of this Court. The terms of this order,

accordingly, shall not be altered, except upon a showing of good cause.

I. Statement of Case

The State charged Defendant, Lane Miles, with one count of Murder in violation of South

Loyola Code Annotated § 16-3-10 and the lesser included offense of illegal distribution of a

Category I controlled substance in violation of South Loyola Code Annotated § 44-53-370,

alleging that on November 1, 2006, Defendant unlawfully caused the death of Jason

Richardson, during the commission of a felony, to-wit: the distribution of methylene

dioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), an illegal drug and controlled substance, contrary to the

laws of the State of South Loyola, and the good order, peace and dignity thereof. Upon

arraignment, Lane Miles pleaded not guilty to all charges.

A. Issue for Trial in This Stage of the Proceedings Whether or not Defendant is guilty of the crimes of Murder and/or illegal

distribution of a category I controlled substance, as charged by the State.

10

STATE OF SOUTH LOYOLA ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ) COUNTY OF ERIE ) THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT ) STATE OF SOUTH LOYOLA, ) ) ) Case No. CF – 2006-101 ) vs. ) (Filed November 15, 2006) ) LANE MILES, ) ) Defendant ) )

Criminal Information

1. Defendant, Lane Miles, an adult, SSN XXX-XX-1234, who resides at 270 Elm Street,

Erie, South Loyola, was arrested in the morning hours of November 1, 2006.

2. I, Davis Stoops, Prosecuting Attorney for the First Judicial Erie County, State of

South Loyola, accuse the above-named Defendant of the following crime: one count

of a violation of South Loyola Criminal Code § 16-3-10, Murder, which offense was

committed on November 1, 2006.

Count One

[Offense § 16-3-10, Murder]

3. On or about the 1st day of November, 2006 in Erie County, State of South Loyola,

Defendant did unlawfully cause the death of Jason Richardson during the

commission of a felony to-wit: by dispensing or distributing methylene

dioxymethamphetamine, a controlled and illegal substance. Defendant committed

said acts in conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk of injury to life,

person and property, and disregard of that risk given the nature and purpose of

Defendant's conduct, and the circumstances known to the Defendant, involved a

gross deviation from the standard of conduct a law abiding person would have

observed, to-wit:

Defendant committed the crime of felony murder in the first degree on November 1, 2006, by causing the death of Jason Richardson, a human being, whose death occurred during an act of, or resulted from, the commission of unlawful distributing or dispensing of controlled dangerous substances, or trafficking in illegal drugs, namely methylene

11

dioxymethamphetarnine, contrary to the laws of the State of South Loyola and against the order, peace and dignity thereof.

Count Two [Offense § 44-53-370, Distribution of Category I Controlled Substance]

4. On or about the 1" day of November 2003 in Erie County, State of South Loyola,

Defendant did unlawfully intentionally, purposefully, and recklessly distribute a controlled dangerous substance or illegal drug, namely methylene dioxymethamphetamine, as set forth in the foregoing paragraph 3, contrary to the laws of the State of South Loyola and against the order, peace and dignity thereof.

By: Davis Stoops

Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Erie County, State of South Loyola Erie County Courthouse One Courthouse Square Ignatius Springs, South Loyola 29345

12

AFFIDAVITS

 

13

State of South Loyola ) ) AFFIDAVIT OF CHRIS KNIGHT )

1. My name is Chris Knight. I am currently a detective with the Nola University Police

Department. I have been in law enforcement for 10 years. I have Basic and

Advanced School Resource Officer (SRO) certifications, Basic and Advanced

Narcotics Interdiction training, as well as Undercover Narcotics training from the

South Loyola Criminal Justice Academy. Additionally, I have attended club drug

seminars and club drug updates provided by the US Drug Enforcement

Administration (DEA) for each of the last 5 years.

2. At approximately 00:22 on 1 November 2006, communications dispatched a call of

an unconscious or unresponsive person at a party located at 270 Elm Street. Despite

being on the way home from my second 18 hour shift in a row, I responded to the

call as I was already in the vicinity.

3. I arrived on the scene at 00:26, as did the Nola Emergency Medical Service (NEMS).

We were met by an individual, who I later determined was Lane Miles, who took us

into the residence. There were several people already on the lawn of the residence.

I told everyone to remain calm and to stay put while I checked out the situation with

the EMS. Upon entering the residence, it was obvious that there was some kind of

costume party going on.

4. There was a small stage on the west side of the room, along with lights and

amplifiers. There was also a great deal of party refuse (plates, cups) around the

room. An individual was lying face up on the floor in front of the stage. His face was

ashen and he did not appear to be breathing. The EMS technicians immediately

began resuscitation efforts, but were not successful. The area immediately

surrounding the individual was in severe disarray, with furniture knocked over and

many spills. At this time, I ordered everyone into the study off the east side of the

room so the scene could be secured. I looked through the immediate area but found

nothing out of the ordinary. At 00:36, EMS transported the patient to Regional

Medical Center, where I found out later he was pronounced dead. I saw no need to

call any additional officers to the scene at the time.

5. I then went to the study and asked who lived in the house. I was again introduced to

Miles along with Shannon Phillips and Drew Harding. Miles identified the patient as

Jason Richardson, a senior at Nola University. Miles further stated s/he saw Jason

14

suddenly become convulsive, eventually collapsing. S/he said that s/he had no

explanation since Jason was quiet and kept to himself.

6. During preliminary investigation, I spoke with Sam Barnes-Smith. As a result of this

conversation, I became aware of an interesting ritual that always took place at Miles'

Halloween parties. At midnight, someone comes in dressed as the Grim Reaper and

delivers drinks. It appears that one of the individuals is given a drink laced with

narcotics. Besides Miles, I was told that two other people were involved in this ritual -

Phillips and Harding. At that point, I called for additional officers. Once more units

arrived, I pointed out Barnes-Smith for an interview.

7. I then separated the three residents and isolated them in their separate upstairs

rooms. I first interviewed Harding, who admitted knowing of the ritual but denied

anything having to do with the Grim Reaper. S/he further stated that s/he didn't even

see the Grim Reaper make an appearance at the party, but admitted that s/he was

not downstairs at midnight. Harding also said that s/he didn’t know who the Grim

Reaper was and thought that was the fun of it. Through his/her body language,

Harding appeared very nervous during questioning.

8. I next interviewed Phillips. S/he admitted knowing of the ritual but denied anything

having to do with the Grim Reaper. Phillips also stated s/he did see the Grim Reaper

make the rounds at midnight, and Richardson could have possibly been given a drink

by the costumed individual. Phillips' demeanor made me very suspicious, as it

appeared by the body language (nervousness, fidgeting, lack of eye contact) that

s/he was not fully cooperative.

9. I told Phillips that I knew about his/her involvement in the Grim Reaper routine, and it

was time to come clean. Miranda warnings were issued. Phillips acknowledged

understanding them and further agreed to continue the interview. Phillips then

began to sob and told me all about the Grim Reaper scheme that had been

performed at three previous Halloween parties.

10. Phillips said that s/he, Miles and Harding had come up with the stunt as part practical

joke, part revenge at every Halloween party to be played on someone who had

irritated one of them. S/he stated that once the person was selected, Harding was in

charge of getting that person to the party. Phillips stated s/he was responsible for

getting the drug for the drink, and the drug of choice was methylene

dioxymethamphetamine or MDMA, known to Phillips and most kids as Ecstasy or X.

15

Phillips identified Miles as the one who would wear the Grim Reaper costume and

distribute the drinks at midnight.

11. On this evening, Phillips stated that Miles had selected Jason Richardson as the

target. Phillips also stated that Harding was not involved in this prank, as Richardson

was already coming to the party when the decision was made. Phillips gave the vial

of MDMA to Miles earlier that evening, and assumed all was going according to plan

when s/he saw the Grim Reaper appear at midnight. I asked Phillips to stand and

performed a Terry frisk for my safety. Despite seeming very anxious and nervous

during the pat down, Phillips had no weapon or other suspicious bulges on his/her

person. At this time, Phillips was taken into custody and escorted downstairs by

another officer.

12. I interviewed Miles last. When I entered the room where Miles was held, I Mirandized

him/her. Miles appeared very surprised that I had read those warnings to him/her,

but understood them and stated s/he would talk to me. I asked Miles for more

information as to his/her whereabouts at midnight. S/he stated that s/he and Harding

were upstairs in his/her room at midnight. I asked for consent to search the room and

Miles agreed.

13. I searched the room while Miles stood in the doorway. I found nothing significant until

I searched under Miles' bed, which was pushed flush against the west side of the

room. My search under the bed uncovered a hastily stowed black cloak, gloves, and

mask near the foot of the bed. I stood, holding the costume, and said "Some others

have told me about this costume." I asked if Miles had anything else to tell me. Miles

then seemed to slump in the doorway and stated, "Alright, alright. I was the Grim

Reaper you might have heard about." I continued searching under the bed. Further

investigation revealed a vial with a small amount of powder in it underneath the bed,

located close to the back wall. Miles did not act surprised to see the vial. This fit the

description of the MDMA provided by Phillips to Miles. Miles was taken into custody

and escorted downstairs by another officer at this time.

14. I had Harding taken into custody and escorted downstairs as well. I recovered the

red plastic cup from the victim, inventoried the evidence and returned to the police

station where Miles and Phillips were booked for possession of a controlled

substance and all three were booked for distributing alcohol to minors. I discovered

recently that Phillips pled to a lesser offense in exchange for testimony against Miles

and the charges against Harding were dismissed.

16

15. As the primary detective leading the investigation, I attended the autopsy of

Richardson. The Coroner, Dr. Nathan Banner, could not immediately find an obvious

single cause for the seizures that were the cause of death and ordered a toxicology

report. He sent samples of bodily fluids to the toxicologist.

16. When I talked to the Coroner about the autopsy results, he told me that Richardson's

death was quite violent and that his seizures lasted for as much as five minutes

before he died. The toxicology report revealed 23 mg of MDA, a metabolite of

MDMA, in the system and the forensic report on the vial and cup revealed that the

trace liquid and powder contained high levels of MDMA as well. In fact, the potency

of the MDMA was such that it was no surprise that the dose was lethal. Traces of

pseudoephedrine were also found. Pseudoephedrine is a common ingredient in

over-the-counter cold remedies.

17. In my ten years as a law enforcement officer, I have seen a steady increase in the

use of "club drugs." It has been necessary for me to learn as much as I can about

them. I have spent most of my time focusing on 3-4 methylene

dioxymethamphetamine, also known as "Ecstasy," "X" "Adam," "MDMA – there are

hundreds of street names depending on what it is mixed with; Gamma-hydroxy

butyrate, also know as "GHB," "G" "Georgia Home Boy"; and Rohypnol, also known

as "Roofie" or "Roche.”

18. Club drugs are not exactly what you would call "fun drugs." Although users may think

these substances are harmless, National Institute of Health (NIH) research has

shown that club drugs can produce a range of unwanted effects, including

hallucinations, paranoia, amnesia and, in some cases, death. When used with

alcohol, these drugs can be even more harmful. Some club drugs work on the same

brain mechanisms as alcohol and, therefore, can dangerously boost the effects of

both substances. Also, there are great differences among individuals in how they

react to these substances and there are no predictors of how he or she will react.

Some people have been known to have extreme, even fatal, reactions the first time

they use. Studies suggest club drugs found in party settings are often adulterated or

impure and, thus, even more dangerous. Because some club drugs are colorless,

tasteless and odorless, they are easy for people to slip into drinks.

19. Ecstasy is a stimulant and psychedelic. Young people use Ecstasy to improve their

moods or get energy to stay out all night; however, chronic abuse of Ecstasy

appears to damage the brain's ability to think and regulate emotion, memory, sleep

17

and pain. Because it is often created in illegal labs, Ecstasy can be mixed with

caffeine, methamphetamine, cocaine or ephedrine. Users of MDMA face many of

the same risks as users of other stimulants such as cocaine and amphetamines.

These include increases in heart rate and blood pressure, a special risk for people

with circulatory problems or heart disease and other symptoms, such as muscle

tension, involuntary teeth clenching, nausea, blurred vision, faintness and chills or

sweating. Long term research in animals links MDMA exposure to long-term

damage to neurons that are involved in mood, thinking and judgment. A study in

nonhuman primates showed that exposure to MDMA for only four days caused

damage to serotonin nerve terminals that was evident six to seven years later. While

similar neurotoxicity has not been shown definitively in humans, the wealth of animal

research indicating MDMA’s damaging properties suggests that MDMA is not a safe

drug for human consumption.

20. On November 2, 2006, I went to Richardson’s dorm room with his parents to gather

his personal effects. While in the victim’s dormitory room, I found a flyer for the party

on his desk. I placed it in an evidence bag and submitted it to the forensics lab for

analysis. According to the report, a print lifted from a piece of tape on the top of the

flyer matched Miles’ fingerprint. While the parents were packing away his things,

they came across a box that was hidden under his bed. The box contained a

blender, bowls, tubing, several lithium batteries, about 30 packages of Sudafed and

a small propane canister where the fittings had turned blue. I recognized this at once

as a home methamphetamine laboratory. Because it is an extremely dangerous

process, I immediately taped off the area, evacuated the parents and neighboring

dorm rooms, and alerted Nola Narcotics Team and the Department of Health and

Environmental Control (DHEC).

21. It is true that I have been criticized by my sergeant for not calling for additional

officers sooner and for questioning the suspects at the house and rather than the

station, but I have my reasons for doing what I did. First, I didn't suspect criminal

activity until I heard the Grim Reaper story and I immediately called for additional

units at that time. Second, I didn't want any of the suspects to get too defensive

about being questioned.

18

WITNESS ADDENDUM I have reviewed this statement, and I have nothing of significance to add at this time. The material facts are true and correct.

Signed,

Chris Knight

Chris Knight

SIGNED AND SWORN to me before 8:00a.m. on the day of this round of the 2007 South Loyola Mock Trial Competition.

C.M. McCormack

C.M. McCormack, Notary Public State of South Loyola My Commission Expires: 07/25/09

19

State of South Loyola ) ) AFFIDAVIT OF LANE MILES )

I. My name is Lane Miles. I am 22 years old. Technically, I am still a senior at Nola

University. This is my fifth year. I am working hard to graduate this year because my

dad says this is it for me. He’s cutting me of if I don’t graduate and get a job. What in

the world would I do with a degree in Environmental Geography?

2. My dad is loaded and off to Europe with his third wife. It was a sweet deal. Until this

year, he was happy as long as I was in school and worked some lame part time job. I

was out of his way, so he paid for everything.

3. I’m sure you know all about the house rented with Drew Harding and Shannon

Phillips on Elm Street. I don’t stay there anymore though since I got kicked out.

Something about a suspicious death on the premises constituting a material violation

of a lease provision. Well, that was fun while it lasted... the parties and all. Right now,

I am just sleeping on a friend’s couch…that is, when I am not a guest of the fine

accommodations you have downstairs. I can’t go far. My passport has been

confiscated. My dad is not happy and funds are running low. Such fine

representation does not come cheap.

4. What happened that night? You tell me! I saw Jason Richardson when he walked in

the door. I don’t remember seeing him again. I was upstairs with Drew when the

imposter Grim Reaper showed up down stairs. Earlier that night, I made it clear to

Drew and Shannon that I was through with that old Halloween prank of spiking the

drinks. It was just always the same; it really wasn’t funny anymore. Enough was

enough. I came to that conclusion a couple of days before the party. Peyton told me

some story about some kids getting high and getting killed in a wreck, but that isn’t

what changed my mind. X is a club drug – it’s not like crack or crystal meth. Nobody

dies taking X.

5. When Shannon got to the house with the X, I said I wasn’t doing it. Shannon just

wouldn’t let go, though. S/he was determined for Jason to be the mark and for the

prank to go as planned. Shannon even demanded I give him/her the Grim Reaper

costume so s/he could do it. I don't remember touching Shannon's vial, but I

suppose I could have for a second. S/he might have shoved it into my hand at one

point. I do know I wanted nothing at all to do with it. For a moment, I really wasn't

sure why Shannon was suddenly so adamant about making sure the Reaper made

the rounds that night.

20

6. Then, I began to catch on. Shannon went ballistic when I said no to letting him/her

wear the costume and when I told him/her to settle his/her "business disputes" with

his/her "lab" partner, Jason, on his/her own time. Yeah, Shannon and Jason spent a

lot of time together in the lab - and at the hardware store. I knew why they had

something going on. I am not surprised they found the meth lab at Jason's place, but

I had never been there. I know for a fact that Jason made it and Shannon sold it. You

want to know every little thing that happened? Ask Shannon. S/he has the answers.

I was so ticked at Shannon about the whole thing. I regretted that the two of us had

decided to dress alike. We were a couple of burglars. What a dumb idea.

7. Anyway, our argument was at about 8:00 p.m. that night. From then on, Shannon

gave me the cold shoulder, which was fine by me. I really regretted that we had

agreed to dress alike, but it was too late to get a new costume. At first, the party

seemed like it was going well, with lots of people drifting in. I only spoke to Jason

once that night - I think it was right after he arrived because he didn't have a drink in

his hand yet. It was a short, meaningless conversation. I was certainly more cordial

to Jason than Shannon was that evening.

8. Drew and I did go upstairs before midnight, but it wasn't because it was getting close

to midnight or anything like that. The party was a bomb. I was getting irritated

because the band was awful. We hung out in Drew’s room. I may have gone to my

room once or twice, but not for long. Then we went back downstairs just in time to

see Jason start to convulse.

9. I didn't confess to anything when I talked to the cops. When I said, "I was the Grim

Reaper," what I meant was that I'd been the Grim Reaper in years past, but not this

time. I didn't even know at that point that someone had been downstairs

impersonating the Grim Reaper at the party. I just said the Grim Reaper costume

was mine, though I last put it in the closet. I don't know who stuffed it under my bed

along with that drug vial. Again, ask Shannon. S/he must have been the last person

in my room before it was searched. Think about it - why would I have consented to a

search of my room if I had hidden the evidence under the bed?

10. I had nothing against Jason. Sure, I was mad that he ditched Chem. Lab and we

bombed the experiment, but I had confronted him about that and he promised to do

some extra credit to get our grades up.

14. On the advice of my counsel, that is all I am prepared to state at this time. I didn't do

it. I had no reason to hurt Jason, and I was done with the Grim Reaper pranks.

21

WITNESS ADDENDUM I have reviewed this statement, and I have nothing of significance to add at this time. The material facts are true and correct.

Signed,

Lane Miles

Lane Miles

SIGNED AND SWORN to me before 8:00a.m. on the day of this round of the 2007 South Loyola Mock Trial Competition.

C.M. McCormack

C.M. McCormack, Notary Public State of South Loyola My Commission Expires: 07/25/09

22

EXHIBITS

 

23

EXHIBIT #2: Official Lab Report – Jason Richardson

Official Report

Division of Forensic Sciences Ignatius Springs Regional Lab South Loyola Bureau of Investigation DOFS Case #2003-39546 State of South Loyola Report Date 11/3/2006 Requested Service: Toxicology-Postmortem Agency: Ignatius Springs Police Department Requested by: C. Knight Case Subjects: Suspects: Lane Miles Victim: Jason Richardson Shannon Phillips Drew Harding Evidence: The laboratory received the following evidence for analysis from the submitting agency on 1 1/3/06 via lockbox:

001 Sealed plastic bags containing the following items identified as collected from "Jason Richardson"

00lA Tube(s) containing urine 00lB Tube(s) containing femoral blood 001C Tube(s) containing chest blood

Results and Conclusions: Drug Screen Results by: Immunoassay Subm# Drug Screen Classification Result 001C blood-alcohol Indicative blood-barbiturates Negative blood-certain benzodiazepines Negative blood-cocaine/cocaine metabolites Negative blood-common opioids Negative

Drug Confirmation Results Submission 00 1 C by: Gas chromatography/mass spectrometry sample is positive for 3,4-

methylenedioxyemethamnphetamine (MDMA) 7 mg/l Submission 00 1 C by: Gas chromatography/mass spectrometry sample is positive for 3,4-

methylenedioxynethylamphetamine( MDA) 23 mg/l Submission OOlC by: Gas chromatography/mass spectrometry sample is negative for certain basic

drugs, for example propoxyphene and oxycodone Submission 00 1 C by: Gas Chrornatography/mass spectrometry sample is positive for ethyl alcohol: 0.13 g/100 ml Submission 00 1 C by: Gas Chromotographylmass spectrometry sample is positive for

ephedrinelpseudoephredrine: 2 mg/l Respectfully submitted,

Natasha Barnes

Natasha Barnes, Forensic Toxicologist

24

EXHIBIT #3: 911 Phone Transcript 11-1-06 00:20 a.m. Dispatch: "Emergency 911. Is your emergency Police, Fire, or Medical?" Caller 1: “I'm at The Haunted House. Someone at the Halloween Party is on the floor

in convulsions. We need an ambulance in a hurry." Dispatch: “I need your name and location, please.” Caller 1: “My name is Sam Barnes-Smith. Come quick.” Dispatch: "Can you confirm the address?" Caller 1: "I don't know the street number. It's The Haunted House. It’s on Elm

Street." Dispatch: "Stay calm. I can't send anyone without an exact street number." Caller 1: (apparently to the dispatcher) "I don’t know the number. Oh, wait. I see

Shannon coming down the stairs." Caller 1: (apparently to Shannon): "What is the exact address here? 911 says they

can't send an ambulance without the exact address." Caller 1: (apparently to dispatcher): "S/he says it is at 270 Elm Street. You need to

hurry." Dispatch: “EMS (Emergency Medical Service) 3, Prepare to copy.” EMS 3: “EMS 3. Go ahead dispatch.” Dispatch: “Report of a person having a seizure or unconscious at 270 Elm Street, no

further information available at this time. Your incident number is 47-001110601.”

EMS 3: “EMS 3 copies. We are in route to 270 Elm Street for report of person

having a seizure or unconscious. We have an ETA (estimated time of arrival) of three minutes.”

Dispatch: “Good copy.”

Page _____ of ______ 1 3

25

Dispatch: “NPD (Nola University Police Department) 192, prepare to copy.” GPD 192: “NPD 192. Go ahead dispatch.” Dispatch: “Report of a person having a seizure or unconscious at 270 Elm Street, no

further information available at this time. EMS is also en route. Your incident number is 47-001110601.”

GPD 192: “NPD 192 copies. We are en route to 270 Elm Street for report of person

having a seizure or unconscious. We copy EMS is also en route. We have an ETA of four minutes. Time is 00:22.”

Dispatch: "I've dispatched police and EMS to 270 Elm Street, but it's a very long street. Do you know the nearest cross-street?" Caller 1: "We're near the intersection of Metropolitan Avenue. It's a big two-story

house where all the cars will be. They can't miss it.” Dispatch: “OK, I just want you to stay on the line with me. We need to know what's going on." Caller 1: "OK." Dispatch: "Do you know the name of the individual who is having the convulsions?" Caller 1: "Yes, it's Jason Richardson." Dispatch: "Do you know whether Jason has any medical conditions? Is he epileptic? Does he take any anti-seizure medications?" Caller 1: "I don't know.” Dispatch: "Is Jason conscious?" Caller 1: "It doesn't look like he is. Hold on, I have a stethoscope. Let me see if he's

breathing." Dispatch: "Do you hear anything with the stethoscope?" Caller 1: (frantically): "No, no, no. He's not breathing." Dispatch: "Do you know how to perform CPR?"

Page _____ of ______ 2 3

26

Caller 1: "I think so; I took a First Aid course in high school. Oh, wait a minute. Here's Peyton. I'm going to try to do CPR. I'm going to hand the phone to Peyton."

GPD 192: “Dispatch, NPD 192.” Dispatch: “Go ahead NPD 192.” GPD 192: “NPD 192 on scene.” Dispatch: “Copy. NPD 192 on scene at 00:26.” EMS 3: “Dispatch, EMS 3.” Dispatch: “Go ahead EMS 3.” EMS 3: “EMS 3 on scene.” Dispatch: “Copy. EMS 3 on scene at 00:26.” Caller 2: "Thank goodness, EMS is coming in the front door. Thank you. Thank you.

I'm going now."

Page _____ of ______ 3 3

27

EXHIBIT #6: Photographs of Grim Reaper Costume

 

 

Grim Reaper

Costume on model

 

Components of

Grim Reaper

Costume

 

28

EXHIBIT #7: Ignatius Springs Fingerprint Bureau Report

IGNATIUS SPRINGS POLICE DEPARTMENT FORENSICS DIVISION

IDENTIFICATION SECTION FINGERPRINT BUREAU

REPORT

ITEM(S) EXAMINED: (1) Small vial and cap sealed in an evidence bag recovered by Det. Knight from 270 Elm Street. (2) Red plastic cup sealed in an evidence bag recovered by Det. Knight from 270 Elm Street. (3) Yellow paper (8 ½” by 11”) with one piece of clear plastic

tape affixed to top center sealed in an evidence bag marked as recovered by Det. Knight from Room 326 Hinshaw Dormitory Nola University.

TYPE OF EXAMINATION: Latent fingerprint analysis.

RECOVERY: Latent prints were lifted from the vial and compared to Fingerprint Database. One partial print was lifted from the tape from the paper

and was compared to the Fingerprint Database. No usable prints were found on cap. No usable prints were found on plastic cup. No usable prints were found on the paper.

RESULTS: After comparison to Fingerprint Database, sufficient points of reference were found to make three positive identifications: (1) A latent print lifted from the top portion of the vial was

matched to the known left thumbprint of Lane Miles. (2) A latent print lifted from the central portion of the vial was

matched to the known right index finger of Shannon Phillips. (3) Two latent prints lifted from the bottom portion of the vial

were matched to the right thumb and middle finger of Detective Chris Knight.

(4) The partial latent print from the tape was matched to the known right thumbprint of Lane Miles.

Signed: Corp. Jimmy Dean

Date: 11/5/06

29

EXHIBIT #8: Official Toxicology Report – Evidence

Official Report Division of Forensic Sciences Ignatius Springs Regional Lab South Loyola Bureau of Investigation DOFS Case #2006-39546 State of South Loyola Report Date 11/3/2006 Requested Service: Toxicology Agency: Ignatius Springs Police Department Requested by: C. Knight Case Subjects: Suspects: Lane Miles Shannon Phillips Drew Harding Victim: Jason Richardson Evidence: The laboratory received the following evidence for analysis from the submitting

agency on 11/3/06 via lockbox: 002 Sealed plastic bags containing the following items identified as collected from

270 Elm Street 002A crushed red plastic cup containing liquid residue 002B glass vial containing powder residue Results and Conclusions: Drug Confirmation Results

Submission 002A by: Gas chromatography/mass spectrometry sample is positive for 3,4-methylenedioxyemethamphetamine(M DMA) 28 mg/ Submission 002A by: Gas chromatography/mass spectrometry sample is negative for certain basic drugs, propoxyphene and oxycodone Submission 002A by: Gas Chromatography/mass spectrometry sample is positive for ethyl alcohol Submission 002A by: Gas Chromatography/mass spectrometry sample is negative for ephedrine/pseudoephedrine Submission 002B by: Gas chromatography/mass spectrometry sample is positive for 3,4-methylenedioxyemetharnphetarnine (MDMA) 28 mg

Page _____ of ______ 1 2

30

Submission 002B by: Gas Chromatography/mass spectrometry sample is negative for certain basic drugs, propoxyphene and oxycodone Submission 002B by: Gas Chromatography/mass spectrometry sample is negative for ethyl alcohol Submission 002B by: Gas Chromatographylmass spectrometry sample is negative for ephedrine/pseudoephedrine

Respectfully submitted,

Natasha Barnes Natasha Barnes, Forensic Toxicologist

Page _____ of ______ 2 2

31

EXHIBIT #9: Halloween Party Invitation with Fingerprint on Tape

 

Stay until the clock

strikes

midnight

for you know who!

 

 

 

at  The  

 

 

 

October

31st 9pm  

 

   

32

JURY INSTRUCTIONS

 

33

PRELIMINARY CHARGE

What I will now say is intended to serve as an introduction to the trial of this case. These

remarks are not a charge on the law in this case. I will instruct you on the law applicable to this case at

the end of the trial before you retire to consider your verdict. This is merely an explanation of the

procedure that we will follow in the trial of this case so that you may better understand what may be

happening.

The defendant is charged by an indictment filed in this court with the crimes of 1) Murder, and 2)

Distribution of a Category I Controlled Substance - the elements of which will be explained to you later.

The indictment is simply the charge by which the case is brought into court, and it is not, in any

sense, evidence of any of the allegations it contains. The defendant has pled "not guilty" to this

indictment. The state, therefore, has the burden of proving each of the elements of the crime[s]

charged in the indictment beyond a reasonable doubt. And it will be your duty, ladies and gentlemen,

to decide whether the state has met that burden.

Your purpose as jurors is to find and determine the facts. You are the sole judge of the facts. If

at any time I make any comment regarding the facts, you must disregard it.

You are to determine the facts from the testimony you hear and the other evidence introduced in

court. It is up to you to determine the inferences which you feel may properly be drawn from the

evidence.

It is especially important that you perform your duty of determining the facts diligently and

conscientiously, because ordinarily there is no way to correct an erroneous determination of the facts

by a jury.

On the other hand, and with equal emphasis, the same law that makes you the judges of the

facts makes me the judge of the law. The law as given by the court is the only law you may consider.

You must accept and follow it even though you may disagree with it. I cannot tell you what the facts

are, and you cannot disagree with me about what the law is or should be. Your job is to take the law as

i give it to you and apply it to the facts as you find them from the testimony of the witnesses and any

34

other evidence that is introduced. After doing that, you will render your verdict, a true and just verdict

under the solemn oath that you just took as jurors.

It is important that you keep an open mind and not decide any issue in the case until all of the

evidence has been presented, the parties have made their closing arguments, and i have instructed

you on the law in this case.

It is your solemn responsibility to determine the guilt or innocence of the defendant, and your

verdict must be based solely on the evidence as it is presented to you in this trial and on the law as i

instruct you during and at the close of the trial.

Now, in just a moment, the solicitor will make what is called an "opening statement" in which the

solicitor will explain to you the issues in this case or, at least, what the solicitor thinks the issues are in

this case. The attorney for the defendant may also make an opening statement, although he [she] is

not required to do so. What the attorneys tell you during their opening statements is not evidence in

this case, it is only their contention as to what the issues are.

The evidence in this case will be presented to you by the testimony of sworn witnesses from this

witness stand and/or by exhibits that may be introduced into evidence.

In determining what the true facts are in this case, you must decide whether or not the testimony

of the witnesses is believable. It will be my responsibility to rule as a matter of law as to whether

certain testimony is admissible at all or not. But once the testimony is admitted, whether or not you

believe it is solely for you to determine.

In deciding whether to believe a witness, you have the right to consider the interest of any

witness, the bias of any witness, the prejudice of any witness, the opportunity for the witness to have

seen the matters and things about which the witness may testify, and the way the witness acts on the

witness stand.

You have a right to consider anything that is in the record that will help you evaluate the

testimony of the witnesses. That means that it is your duty to pay close attention to these witnesses, to

observe the witnesses, to listen to the witnesses, and to pay close attention to the attorneys and to the

court. Don't let your thoughts wander, but give strict attention to the testimony in this case, so that at

35

the end of all the testimony, after the arguments of counsel and the charge on the law by the court, you

will then be in a position to determine what the true facts are and to apply the law to those facts, and

thus render a true and just verdict.

We will now begin the trial.

36

JURY INSTRUCTIONS FOR DELIBERATIONS:

PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE The defendant has pled not guilty to this indictment, and that plea puts the burden on the state

to prove the defendant guilty. A person charged with committing a criminal offense in this state is never

required to prove himself innocent.

I charge you that it is an important rule of the law that the defendant in a criminal trial, no matter

what the seriousness of the charge may be, will always be presumed to be innocent of the crime for

which the indictment was issued unless guilt has been proven by evidence satisfying you of that guilt

beyond a reasonable doubt. This presumption of innocence does not end when you begin your

deliberations, but it accompanies the defendant throughout the trial until you reach a verdict of guilt

based on evidence satisfying you of that guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The presumption of innocence is like a robe of righteousness placed about the shoulders of the

defendant which remains with the defendant until it has been stripped from the defendant by evidence

satisfying you of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The presumption of innocence is not mere legal theory. It is not just a legal phrase. It is a

substantial right to which every defendant is entitled unless you, the jury, are satisfied from the

evidence of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

REASONABLE DOUBT The state has the burden of proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Some of

you may have served as jurors in civil cases, where you were told that it is only necessary to prove that

a fact is more likely true than not true, such as by the greater weight or preponderance of the evidence.

In criminal cases, the state’s proof must be more powerful than that. It must be beyond a reasonable

doubt.

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you firmly convinced of the defendant’s

guilt. There are very few things in this world that we know with absolute certainty, and in criminal cases

the law does not require proof that overcomes every possible doubt. If, based on your consideration of

the evidence, you are firmly convinced that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged, you must find

the defendant guilty. If on the other hand, you think there is a real possibility that the defendant is not

guilty, you must give the defendant the benefit of the doubt and find him [her] not guilty.

37

MURDER

The defendant is charged with murder. "Murder" is the killing of any person with malice

aforethought, either express or implied. Therefore, in order to convict the defendant of murder, the state

must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant killed another person with malice

aforethought.

Malice is hatred, ill-will, or hostility towards another person. It is the intentional doing of a

wrongful act without just cause or excuse and with an intent to inflict an injury or under circumstances

where the law will infer an evil intent.

Malice aforethought does not require that malice exists for any particular time before the act is

committed, but malice must exist in the mind of the defendant just before and at the time of the act is

committed.

Malice aforethought may be express or inferred. These terms, “express” and “inferred” do not

mean different kinds of malice but merely the manner in which malice may be shown to exist. That is

either by direct evidence or by inference from the facts and circumstances which are proved. Express

malice is shown when a person speaks words which express hatred or ill will for another or when the

person prepared beforehand to do the act which was later accomplished; for example, lying in wait for a

person or any other acts of preparation going to show that the deed was within the defendant’s mind

would be express malice.

Malice may be inferred from conduct showing a total disregard for human life. Inferred malice

may also arise when the deed is done with a deadly weapon. A deadly weapon is any article,

instrument, or substance which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm. Whether an instrument

has been used as a deadly weapon depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.

Inferred malice may also arise from conduct which amounts to the commission of an inherently

dangerous felony. This is known as the Felony Murder rule. A felony is inherently dangerous if it poses

a natural or probable risk of death or serious bodily harm that was reasonably foreseeable by the

defendant.

38

INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER You are allowed to consider whether the defendant is guilty of the lesser-included offense of

involuntary manslaughter.

To prove involuntary manslaughter, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the

defendant unintentionally killed the victim without malice, but while engaged in an unlawful activity not

naturally tending to cause death or great bodily harm or that the defendant unintentionally killed the

victim without malice, while engaged in a lawful activity with reckless disregard for the safety of others.

Unintentional means that the defendant did not intend for anyone to be killed or seriously

injured.

Reckless disregard for the safety of others is more than mere negligence or carelessness.

Mere negligence or carelessness is the failure to use the care that a person of ordinary reason would

use under the same circumstances. Recklessness is a conscious failure to use ordinary care.

Reckless disregard for the safety of others means that you are not interested in the consequences of

your acts or the rights and safety of others

If a person who knows, or should know, that ordinary care requires certain precautions be taken

for the safety of others when using a dangerous instrumentality, such as a gun or car, but that person

fails to use those precautions without concern, the person’s actions are considered reckless.

PROXIMATE CAUSE The state must also prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant’s act was the

proximate cause of death.

Proximate cause is the direct cause; it is the immediate cause; it is the efficient cause; it is that

cause without which the death of the victim would not have resulted. There must be a chain of

causation from the time of the injury inflicted by the defendant until the time of the victim’s death.

Proximate cause does not necessarily mean the injury inflicted by the defendant must have occurred

immediately prior to death.

There may be more than one proximate cause. The acts of two or more persons may combine

together to be a proximate cause of the death of a person. The defendant's act may be regarded as

the proximate cause if it is a contributing cause of the death of the victim. The fact that other causes

also contribute to the death of the victim does not relieve the defendant from responsibility. The

defendant's act need not be the sole cause of the death, but must be a proximate cause contributing to

the death of the victim.

39

UNLAWFUL DISTRIBUTION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE The defendant is charged with the unlawful distribution of the drug methylene-

dioxymethamphetamine, which is a controlled substance classified under Schedule I (also known as

Category I) under the laws of our state.

In order to convict the defendant of this offense, the state must prove beyond a reasonable

doubt that the defendant distributed methylene-dioxymethamphetamine.

DISTRIBUTE means to deliver a drug other than by administering or dispensing it in accordance

with a lawful prescription.

DELIVER means to actually, constructively, or attempt to transfer a drug.

A transfer can involve an exchange for money, a barter, or a gift. There does not have to be

anything given in exchange for the drugs for a transfer to constitute distribution.