1

The Florida High School Mock Trial

Official Competition Packet

State of Florida

v.

Jordan Brooks

Version 1.0 October 22, 2018

Special thanks to The Florida Bar Law Related Education Committee

Mock Trial Case Subcommittee:

Andrew Irvin, Irvin & Irvin PLLC

Stephanie Throckmorton, City of Coral Gables

And

Kristine Desoiza, Fowler White Burnett

Permission to reprint this packet is granted for educational use only.

Any relationship of any character to an actual person, either living or dead, is completely coincidental and unintended.

Center for Law Education/CivicMindED, Inc. E-mail: ewatson@flrea.org ▪ Web site: http://www.flrea.org

With funding from

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Trial Overview ............................................................................................................................... 4

II. Code of Ethical Conduct ................................................................................................................. 5

III. 2018-2019 Mock Trial Case

A. Case Summary .................................................................................................................................. 6

B. Information (Charging Document) ................................................................................................... 7

C. Witness, Exhibit Lists ....................................................................................................................... 8

D. Stipulations ....................................................................................................................................... 9

E. Witness Affidavits

For the Prosecution

1. Parker Moore .......................................................................................................................... 11

2. Sergeant Val Mickelson ........................................................................................................... 15

3. Jeri/Jerry Gordon .................................................................................................................... 20

For the Defendant

1. Jordan Brooks .......................................................................................................................... 25

2. Dr. Alex Martin ........................................................................................................................ 30

3. Harper Davis ............................................................................................................................ 35

E. Exhibit List

A: Photos from Harper Davis’ Cell Phone ...................................................................................... 40

B: Vehicle Multi-Point Inspection .................................................................................................. 41

C: VideoLab Screenshots – Account of Riley Gordon ................................................................. 42

D: VideoLab Screenshots – Account of Jordan Brooks .................................................................. 43

E: Incident Report from Summer Creek High School..................................................................... 44

F: Trespass Notice .......................................................................................................................... 45

G: SocialHub Screenshot – Account of Harper Davis .................................................................... 46

H: Homicide Report of Detective Val Mickelson ........................................................................... 47

I: Office Report of Expert Alex Martin ........................................................................................... 51

F. Applicable Statutes ................................................................................................................................. 54

G. Jury Instructions ……………………………………………………………………………………… 55

IV. Rules of the State Competition

Rule I: Team Composition/Presentation ............................................................................................ 1

Rule II: The Case ................................................................................................................................. 2

Rule III: Trial Presentation ................................................................................................................... 2

Rule IV: Student Attorneys ................................................................................................................... 3

Rule V: Swearing of Witnesses ........................................................................................................... 3

Rule VI: Case Materials ........................................................................................................................ 4

Rule VII: Trial Communication ............................................................................................................. 4

Rule VIII: Trial Start Time ...................................................................................................................... 4

Rule IX: Conduct/Attire ........................................................................................................................ 4

Rule X: Videotaping/Photography ....................................................................................................... 4

Rule XI: Witnesses ................................................................................................................................ 4

Rule XII: Jury Trial ............................................................................................................................... 4

Rule XIII: Viewing a Trial....................................................................................................................... 5

3

Rule XIV: Decisions ............................................................................................................................... 5

Rule XV: Time Limits ............................................................................................................................ 5

Rule XVI: Judging ................................................................................................................................... 6

Rule XVII: Dispute Settlement ................................................................................................................ 7

Rule XVIII: Reporting a Rules Violation Outside the Bar ........................................................................ 7

Rule XIX: Score Sheets/Ballot ................................................................................................................ 8

Rule XX: State Competition Power Matching/Seeding Model .............................................................. 8

Rule XXI: Completion of Score Sheet .................................................................................................... 9

Rule XXII: State Competition Team Advancement .................................................................................. 9

Rule XXIII: Effect of a Bye/Default........................................................................................................... 9

Rule XXIV: Eligibility ............................................................................................................................... 9

Rule XXV: State Competition Awards .................................................................................................... 10

Rule XXVI: Interpretation of State Competition Rules ............................................................................ 10

Rule XXVII: Circuit Competitions ............................................................................................................ 10

V. Simplified Rules of Evidence and Procedure

A. Witness Examination/Questioning .................................................................................................. 11

B. Objections ....................................................................................................................................... 15

C. Trial Motions .................................................................................................................................. 21

D. Attorney Demeanor ......................................................................................................................... 21

VI. Guidelines for Teacher Coaches……………………………………………………..………….22

Attorney Coaches .......................................................................................................................... 23

VII. Guidelines for Judges

A. Score Sheet/Ballot ........................................................................................................................... 24

B. Explanation of Ratings Used on Score Sheet .................................................................................. 25

VIII. Ballots and Forms

A. Presiding Judge Ballot ............................................................................................................................ 26

B. Most Effective Attorney Award Ballot .................................................................................................. 27

C. Most Effective Witness Award Ballot .................................................................................................... 28

D. Legal Professionalism Award Ballot ...................................................................................................... 29

E. Complaint Form ..................................................................................................................................... 30

F. Team Dispute Form ................................................................................................................................ 31

G. Team Roster Form.................................................................................................................................. 32

IX. Professionalism .............................................................................................................................. 33

X. Oath of Admission to The Florida Bar ........................................................................................ 34

4

TRIAL OVERVIEW

I. The presiding judge will ask each side if they are ready for trial. Team rosters/roles should

be presented to the judges.

II. Presiding judge announces that all witnesses are assumed to be sworn.

III. Opening Statements - no objections allowed; however, after each opening has concluded,

the opposing counsel may raise his/her hand to be recognized and state that if they could

have objected they would have objected to. The presiding judge does not need to rule on

this. No rebuttals allowed.

IV. Cases presented. See Rule XV for the trial sequence and time limitations.

V. Closing Statements - no objections allowed; however, after each closing statement has

concluded, the opposing counsel may raise his/her hand to be recognized and state that if

they could have objected - they would have objected to...The presiding judge does not need

to rule on this. An optional rebuttal (up to 1 minute) reserved in advance will be permitted

for the Prosecution.

VI. No jury instructions need to be read at the conclusion of the trial.

Judges should complete score sheets before debriefing. This is crucial and ensures

completed score sheets.

VII. If a material rules violation is entered, scoring judges should exit the courtroom but stay in

the vicinity. The presiding judge will follow the rules for this type of dispute. Scoring

judges will return to the courtroom to determine if the presiding judge feels the dispute

may be considered in scoring. Specific forms are needed. See Rule XVII - DISPUTE

SETTLEMENT.

VIII. Critique (One team exits the courtroom during the critiques). JUDGES DO NOT

ANNOUNCE SCORES OR PERFORMANCE DECISIONS!

IX. ALL DECISIONS OF THE JUDGES ARE FINAL. Debrief/Critique ONLY.

5

CODE OF ETHICAL CONDUCT

The purpose of the Florida High School Mock Trial Competition is to stimulate and

encourage a deeper understanding and appreciation of the American legal system by providing

students the opportunity to participate actively in the legal process. The education of young people

is the primary goal of the mock trial program. Healthy competition helps to achieve this goal.

Other important objectives include improving proficiency in speaking; listening, reading, and

reasoning skills; promoting effective communication and cooperation between the educational and

legal communities; providing an opportunity to compete in an academic setting; and promoting

tolerance, professionalism, and cooperation among young people of diverse interests and abilities.

As a means of diligent application of the Florida High School Mock Trial Competition's

Rules of the Competition, the Mock Trial Advisory/Policy Committee has adopted the following

Code of Ethical Conduct for all participants.

1. Team members promise to compete with the highest standards of ethics, showing respect

for their fellow team members, opponents, judges, evaluators, attorney coaches, teacher

coaches, and mock trial personnel. All competitors will focus on accepting defeat and

success with dignity and restraint. Trials will be conducted honestly, fairly, and with the

utmost civility. Members will avoid all tactics they know are wrong or in violation of the

rules, including the use of unfair extrapolations. Members will not willfully violate the

rules of the competition in spirit or in practice.

2. Teacher coaches agree to focus attention on the educational value of the Mock Trial

Competition. They shall discourage willful violations of the rules. Teachers will instruct

students as to proper procedure and decorum and will assist their students in understanding

and abiding by the competition's rules and this Code of Ethical Conduct.

3. Attorney coaches agree to uphold the highest standards of the legal profession and will

zealously encourage fair play. They will promote conduct and decorum in accordance with

the competition's rules and this Code of Ethical Conduct. Attorney coaches are reminded

that they are in a position of authority and thus serve as positive role models for the

students.

4. All participants (including observers) are bound by all sections of this code and agree to

abide by the provisions. Teams are responsible for insuring that all observers are aware of

the code. Students, teacher coaches, and attorney coaches will be required to sign a copy

of this code. This signature will serve as evidence of knowledge and agreement to the

provisions of the code. Teams will receive scores on ethical conduct during each round.

5. Staff and Mock Trial Advisory Committee members agree to uphold the rules and

procedures of the Florida High School Mock Trial Competition while promoting ethical

conduct and the educational values of the program.

6

CASE SUMMARY

The case summary is offered as an overview and may not be used as evidence in the case.

Jordan Brooks and Riley Gordon met their freshman year in high school and soon became good

friends. They often liked to “one-up” each other with stunts and pranks. Both had a love for film

and performing stunts. Both were popular on social media and had developed a "friendly

competition" to see who could get the most views and followers. They would regularly collaborate

on stunts. Recently, there has been tension between friends due to the rivalry they have cultivated

on social media. During a disagreement, Jordan exclaimed, “I’m going to get you, just you wait!”

and a physical altercation ensued. They were separated and later resolved their issues.

On Friday, August 31, 2018, Jordan Brooks was driving Riley home from an away football game,

followed by friends Parker Moore and Harper Davis. They had stopped at a friend's house to

celebrate their team's win on the way home, so it wasn't until after 11:00p until that they decided

to head home. While they were driving they decided to create a dance challenge video. At that

time there were thousands of videos trending with a dance challenge set to the song “Heart in My

Hand”. Riley climbed out of the passenger window onto the roof of the car and began performing

the dance on the roof while the stunt was filmed.

Jordan Brooks claims they attempted to slow the vehicle when something jumped out into the road

which made Jordan swerve and attempt to brake. Jordan claims when s/he tried to apply the brakes,

they were not working properly. Riley fell from the roof of the car and died at the scene.

Parker Moore and Harper Davis were friends with both Jordan and Riley. Parker was driving a car

behind Jordan’s car and Harper was in the passenger seat. Parker says there was nothing in the

road that caused the incident. Parker believes Jordan pressured Riley to do the video because they

have a long-standing rivalry between them. Parker also believes Jordan was trying to prank Riley

and jerked the steering wheel on purpose to scare Riley. During the investigation, an officer found

15 grams of cannabis on Parker. The State did not press charges in exchange for Parker’s

testimony.

Harper Davis has said s/he saw an animal in the road. S/he remembers seeing an Ibis fly away

from the road just as Riley was hit. Harper believes the video was Riley’s idea because Riley had

been talking about making one of these videos for the last week.

Jordan lost consciousness shortly after the arrival of emergency personnel. Jordan was taken to the

hospital. While at the hospital, Jordan had a blood test revealing a blood alcohol level of 0.019.

Jordan was arrested and charged with vehicular homicide (782.071 FS) and manslaughter by

culpable negligence (782.07 FS).

7

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTY FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR PALMETTO COUNTY, FLORIDA

CRIMINAL DIVISION

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Prosecution,

v. Case No. 18-54818-H

Jordan Brooks,

Defendant.

/

INFORMATION

In the name of and by the authority of the State of Florida:

Ellen B. Woods, State Attorney for the Twenty-First Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida, charges that

in Palmetto County, Florida the above-named Defendant committed the following crimes.

COUNT I

MANSLAUGHTER – FLA. STATUTE § 782.07

That Jordan Brooks did, in Palmetto County, Florida on or about August 31, 2018 commit the crime of

Manslaughter by culpable negligence in that the Defendant, Jordan Brooks, did unlawfully cause the death

of Riley Gordon, contrary to FLA. STATUTE § 782.07.

COUNT II

VEHICULAR HOMICIDE – FLA. STATUTE § 782.071

That Jordan Brooks did, in Palmetto County, Florida on or about August 31, 2018, commit the crime of

Vehicular Homicide in that the Defendant, Jordan Brooks, did operate a motor vehicle in a reckless manner

likely to cause the death of, or great bodily harm to Riley Gordon, contrary to FLA. STATUTE § 782.071.

Ellen B. Woods Ellen B. Woods

Assistant State Attorney

STATE OF FLORIDA

PALMETTO COUNTY

L. JAMES MYERS, STATE ATTORNEY

TWENTY-FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

8

WITNESS LIST

Prosecution: Defense:

1. Parker Moore 1. Jordan Brooks

2. Detective Val Mickelson

2. Dr. Alex Martin

3. Jeri/Jerry Gordon 3. Harper Davis

*Each team must call all three witnesses for their respective party.

**Witnesses may be male or female.

EXHIBIT LIST

Only the following physical evidence may be introduced at trial. The parties have stipulated to the

authenticity of the trial exhibits listed below. The Court will, therefore, not entertain objections to

authenticity of these trial exhibits. The parties have reserved any objections to the admissibility

of any of these exhibits until the trial of the above-captioned matter. The trial exhibits may be

introduced by either party, subject to the Rules of Evidence and the stipulations of the parties

contained in the materials.

Exhibit A: Photos from Harper Davis’ Cell Phone

Exhibit B: Vehicle Multi-Point Inspection

Exhibit C: VideoLab Screen Shots – Account of Riley Gordon

Exhibit D: VideoLab Screen Shots – Account of Jordan Brooks

Exhibit E: Incident Report from Summer Creek High School

Exhibit F: Trespass Notice

Exhibit G: SocialHub Screenshot – Account of Harper Davis

Exhibit H: Homicide Report of Detective Val Mickelson

Exhibit I: Official Report of Expert Alex Martin

9

STIPULATIONS

Stipulations shall be considered part of the record. Prosecution and defense stipulate to the following:

1. Florida High School Mock Trial Rules of Evidence and Procedure apply.

2. All of the exhibits referred to above are authentic and accurate copies of the documents. No

objections as to the authenticity of the exhibits may be made. Exhibits may still be objectionable

under the Florida High School Mock Trial Rules of Evidence and will require a proper foundation

for admission.

3. All witness statements were given under oath the week of September 24th.

4. All charging documents were signed by the proper parties.

5. Jurisdiction and venue are proper.

6. The arrest warrant was based on sufficient probable cause and properly issued.

7. The absence of photographs and video footage may not be questioned.

8. All physical evidence and witnesses not provided for in the case are unavailable and their

availability may not be questioned.

9. Witnesses are assumed to be constructively sequestered during trial with the exception of party

opponents.

10. Neither party can challenge the authenticity of the exhibits.

11. Detective Val Mickelson and Alex Martin are experts in their field. Their qualifications as an

expert cannot be challenged.

12. The identity of the person(s) named in the photo exhibits may not be challenged. Faces are not

visible in order to allow students to portray the characters.

13. Jordan Brooks was 17 years old at the time of the incident and is being charged as an adult.

10

Witness

Statements

11

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTY FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR PALMETTO COUNTY, FLORIDA

CRIMINAL DIVISION

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Prosecution,

v. Case No. 18-54818-H

JORDAN BROOKS,

Defendant.

/

SWORN STATEMENT OF PARKER MOORE

My name is Parker Moore and I am a senior at Summer Creek High School. I have been friends 1

with Jordan Brooks and Riley Gordon for the last few years. Riley and I went to school together 2

since elementary school, but I just met Jordan freshman year. I was friends with them both, but 3

obviously I knew Riley much better. I would actually call Jordan more of an acquaintance – Jordan 4

and Riley were kind of a package deal. I wasn’t always Jordan’s biggest fan. Jordan had the biggest 5

house of all of our friends, his dad was apparently some big whig business guy, however, no one 6

has ever actually met Jordan's parents as they are always off at some work conference or traveling 7

somewhere. I still remember going to Riley's brother's funeral, however little did I know I'd be 8

attending Riley's just a few years after. 9

On Friday, August 31, 2018, I went to our football game against our rival, Ocean Sands 10

High School. I picked up Harper Davis because we live in the same neighborhood. I have known 11

Harper for a while, our parents are friends, so we carpool together a lot. Harper and Riley had been 12

hanging out a lot. They had just met in some film class but were getting super close. I actually 13

12

think Jordan got a little jealous. Jordan is very competitive in everything – school, friends, having 14

the best of everything, getting the most likes on social media. You name it, Jordan will compete 15

with you. That’s the main reason I am not a fan of Jordan. 16

Actually, earlier in the school year, Riley and Jordan got in this huge fight over something 17

on social media. They are always trying to out-do each other on pranks or challenges. I was 18

standing there in the cafeteria when they got into it. Apparently Riley “stole” Jordan’s idea for a 19

stunt where she was going to jump from some building or something. She had already filmed in 20

and everything. Jordan said they were supposed to do it together, Riley disagreed. Then Jordan 21

screamed like “I’m going to get you soon!” or something like that. I was so shook. Who gets that 22

crazy over something so small? Anyway, they started fighting, the teachers broke it up, and they 23

supposedly patched things up. But Jordan isn’t the type to forget these things. 24

I got a car last year for my birthday and I drive people all the time. I’m a good driver, never 25

had any accidents, or anything like that. I even completed the "safe driver" course that is offered 26

at Summer Creek. 27

After the August 31 game, a bunch of us hung around the parking lot. Someone Jordan 28

knew from Ocean Sands told us about a party close by. We didn't know whose party it was but 29

everybody who was anybody was there, so we felt we at least had to make an appearance. There 30

were a lot of people smoking marijuana so, by the time we left, we all really stunk like it since 31

there were so many people smoking. After a while we decided to go home since nothing was really 32

happening and the party was starting to get pretty lame. Riley was itching to go home too as she 33

had a curfew. Harper drove home with me like on the way there, but we followed Jordan and Riley 34

since they were going in a similar direction and Jordan was more familiar with the area. Plus, I 35

13

remember I was feeling a little tired so I thought it'd probably be better for me to follow. I 36

remember Jordan was driving really slow after we got on the main road home, we were right 37

behind them and I had to keep slamming on the brakes, they were going like 10 miles an hour but 38

then speeding up again, it was so hard to follow them, and it was really dangerous. I almost hit 39

Jordan's car at least four times from having to brake so quickly. 40

The “Heart in My Hands” challenge was really big in our school, and Jordan had been 41

talking about it non-stop. Riley and I both thought it was stupid. On the drive home, you could see 42

that Riley kept sticking her head in and out of the car for some reason. Then, while the car was 43

going kind of slow, like around 15 mph, Riley got up on the roof of Jordan’s car. I kept close 44

behind them – we were going around 15 mph. I remember I was honking at them to get them to 45

stop or just slow down, but we maintained speed. I even pulled up along the rear driver side of the 46

car so I could try to yell at Jordan to stop. I couldn’t believe they were doing it! I don’t think Riley 47

was on the roof of the car very long, maybe a few minutes at most. I was so nervous that Riley 48

was going to fall off. 49

All of a sudden, Jordan jerked the wheel to the right. When this happened, Riley flew in 50

the air and fell onto the roadway. It all happened within seconds. I was so focused on Riley falling, 51

I didn’t notice that Jordan had jumped the curb and hit the light pole. I didn’t see anything in the 52

road, no animals, no shredded tires, or anything like that. I was a little tired, but I know I had my 53

eyes peeled on the road the second Riley jumped on the top of Jordan's car. I would have seen 54

something in the road. I have no idea why Jordan swerved except that s/he wanted to get Riley off 55

of the roof. I didn’t even see that Jordan tried to brake. That is exactly something Jordan would do 56

– encourage Riley to get on the roof and then pull a stupid prank like jerking the wheel to ruin her 57

stunt. 58

14

When we got to Riley on the ground, she was really bloody and so pale. She wasn't moving. 59

I remember touching her face and she never even flinched. Jordan was trying to bandage up Riley’s 60

head but we could tell there was something really wrong. Harper wanted to call 911 immediately 61

but Jordan said we should wait a few and try to help him/her ourselves. Harper started performing 62

CPR since s/he is a trained lifeguard. For this reason, we all sat around and waited to no avail. 63

Eventually, I realized this probably was also part of Jordan's plan, so I told Harper that enough 64

was enough and it was time to call 911. Riley was noticeably no longer breathing. 65

I can’t believe it, but I think Jordan swerved on purpose to knock him off. I was driving 66

right behind Jordan and I didn’t see anything in the road, if Jordan says s/he saw an animal or 67

something, s/he must be lying. When the police got there, Jordan pretended to faint so that s/he 68

wouldn't have to speak with the police. They searched all of our cars. I think, because I smelled so 69

much like marijuana, they spent a lot of time looking in my car. They did find fifteen (15) grams 70

of marijuana in my glove compartment. It was really my sister's, but I told the police it was mine 71

to protect her. They are not pressing charges for the possession of marijuana because I agreed to 72

do the right thing and testify on what really happened to Riley.73

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,

Parker Moore

Parker Moore

15

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTY FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR PALMETTO COUNTY, FLORIDA

CRIMINAL DIVISION

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Prosecution,

v. Case No. 18-54818-H

JORDAN BROOKS,

Defendant.

/

SWORN STATEMENT OF SERGEANT VAL MICKELSON

My name is Val Mickelson and I am a Sergeant with the Ocean City Police Department in Palmetto 1

County, Florida. I have been with OCPD for 14 years. After graduating from high school, I 2

attended the police academy at Palmetto Technical College after working for one year in my 3

family’s automotive repair shop. After 5 years with the agency, I was selected to serve on the 4

division traffic unit. After 3 years in that position, I promoted to Sergeant and became a traffic 5

homicide investigator. To become a homicide investigator, I attended and passed basic homicide 6

investigation and advanced homicide investigation courses. I have also attended and passed 7

courses related to commercial vehicle and motorcycle crashes. These are highly advanced classed. 8

In my role as a traffic homicide investigator, I investigate all traffic-related fatalities by processing 9

the scene of the crash including but not limited to the following factors: mitigating and aggravating 10

factors by all drivers involved, the actions of all involved prior to the incident, sobriety of all 11

drivers involved, and other factors that I deem necessary for a complete investigation in order to 12

determine if an criminal charges should be filed. I have testified in more than 20 trials as an expert 13

traffic homicide investigator. 14

16

In my line of work, I handle over 35 fatalities per year. This does not sound like a lot, but 15

Ocean City is not terribly large, and we have 2 traffic homicide units. We primarily see incidents 16

involving younger, distracted drivers. In last 3 years we have seen a gross increase in incidents 17

like this one involving young people performing stunts or gimmicks found on social media. They 18

do these things without concern for their safety or the safety of the community. Crashes related to 19

everything from trying to record video while driving to jumping out of a moving car have become 20

something of an epidemic. In response, our department has launched social media campaigns to 21

educate about the dangers of these stunts as well as partnerships with Mothers For Safe Drivers, 22

public awareness campaigns, and increasing enforcement of traffic violations. The more 23

enforcement we do of existing policy, the more it will deter this behavior. 24

On August 31, I was driving home at the end of a DUI investigation that I had been on 25

since approximately 1430. I noticed on my call screen there was a call that came in at 2322 about 26

an incident in my immediate vicinity. I noted I was the closest unit to the incident and notified 27

dispatch I was en route with an ETA of approximately one minute. I arrived on the scene at 2325 28

and was the first on scene. Medical personnel had not yet arrived, but I could hear other emergency 29

equipment approaching. Upon arriving, I immediately assessed the scene for safety hazards. After 30

determining there were no immediate safety concerns, I observed 3 individuals standing over one 31

person in the roadway. I attended to the victim, who I observed to be bleeding heavily from a head 32

wound. I checked for vitals and was unable to find a pulse. Harper Davis informed me s/he had 33

performed multiple rounds of CPR without success. I proceeded to administer CPR until 34

emergency medical professionals arrived and took over treatment on the victim. 35

I then turned my attention to the three individuals on the scene – Harper Davis, Parker 36

Moore, and Jordan Brooks. After observing the scene, there was a vehicle that collided with a light 37

17

pole. Jordan Brooks was identified as the driver of this vehicle. I began interviewing Jordan 38

Brooks, beginning with questions about their physical condition to determine if medical attention 39

was necessary given the crash. Jordan indicated s/he was fine and did not need the assistance of 40

medical personnel. Upon asking additional questions related to the series of events leading to the 41

crash, Jordan became pale and lost consciousness. I called over medical personnel and they 42

attended to Jordan Brooks, placing him/her in an ambulance and transporting him/her to the 43

hospital. 44

At this time, two more officers arrived on scene. Parker Moore and Harper Davis identified 45

themselves as witnesses to the crash. I then separated them, sending Harper Davis with Officer 46

Daniels and Parker Moore with Officer Grady to give witness statements. I began my investigation 47

of the scene including a field sketch and field notes. The vehicle was traveling west on 42nd Ave 48

before colliding with the light pole on the north shoulder of the street. The light pole was and is 49

positioned 2 feet north of the roadway. The vehicle made contact with the pole directly in the 50

center of the front bumper. At final rest the car was facing northwesterly, partially in the roadway 51

with the front still in contact with the pole. There was disabling damage to the front end of the 52

vehicle. Airbag deployment was observed. Acceleration marks on the raised curb indicating the 53

path of the vehicle were observed and present. No indicators of breaking were observed given the 54

marks on the raised curb and the amount of damage upon collision with the pole. Using industry 55

standard practices, I determined a speed range of 12-15 miles per hour upon collision with the 56

pole. No indicators of speed prior to the change of vehicle direction were observed. A lack of 57

indicators on the road for avoidance maneuvers, marks or otherwise, suggest premeditation of the 58

change in vehicle direction. In other words, the evidence I observed indicated the driver changed 59

direction intentionally. 60

18

I then interviewed Parker Moore and Harper Davis, who had already given statements to 61

the other responding officers. They were interviewed separately. Parker and Harper’s statements 62

were found to be conflicting on issues of visibility of brake lights, the presence of an animal in the 63

roadway, and the intentionality of the vehicle maneuvering. Parker explained that there were no 64

brakes lights to indicate an attempt to slow the vehicle at any point after Riley climbed onto the 65

roof of the vehicle. Parker did not observe anything suddenly entering the roadway to cause Jordan 66

to change the vehicle direction. Instead, Parker explain the rivalry that existed between Jordan and 67

the victim, indicating Jordan intentionally “jerked the wheel” to prank the victim or ruin the stunt. 68

Following the interview, I was informed by Officer Grady that Parker was being detained for the 69

possession of marijuana found in his/her vehicle. I did not observe the odor of marijuana coming 70

from Parker during our interview, nor any indicators of impairment. Harper then provided a 71

conflicting account of the event, saying Jordan did attempt to brake after an animal, possibly an 72

ibis, entered the roadway, also causing Jordan to “swerve” to avoid collision with the animal. 73

I cleared the scene at 0245 and reported to Ocean City General Hospital to interview 74

Jordan. Jordan had regained consciousness, and had minor injuries resulting from the deployment 75

of the airbag. Officer Diaz was at the hospital with Jordan in order to collect a signed consensual 76

blood draw for determining the presence of alcohol or drugs. The sample was taken shortly after 77

midnight. Jordan was noticeably distraught, crying about the death of the victim. Upon inquiring, 78

Jordan told me that Riley, unprovoked, climbed out of the passenger window and onto the roof of 79

the car. At that time, Jordan claims to have reduced speed by removing his/her foot from the 80

accelerator to gradually reduce speed in order to come to a safe stop. S/he then recalled seeing 81

something in the road, causing him/her to react by serving to the right, into the light pole. Jordan 82

19

claimed s/he attempted to apply the brakes with no result. S/he kept saying repetitively s/he “Didn’t 83

know what happened. The car just wouldn’t stop.” 84

A week after the crash, I was granted permission by Jordan’s mother to search Jordan’s 85

car. I searched the vehicle which was impounded in our secured vehicle yard, including 86

downloading data from the Event Data Recorder. This is essentially a “black box” for motor 87

vehicles. The data did indicate there was an acceleration immediately prior to the deployment of 88

the airbags, confirming my observations on the scene. This is noted in my report along with the 89

EDR reading. 90

Two weeks after the crash, I received the toxicology report for Jordan Brooks. The report indicated 91

a BAC of .019%. An industry standard rate of alcohol metabolism would indicate Jordan was 92

likely at a BAC of .034% which is over the legal limit for a minor. Given the totality of the 93

evidence, I had probable cause to charge Jordan with vehicular homicide. Jordan was also charged 94

with manslaughter by culpable negligence. 95

96

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,

Val Mickelson

Val Mickelson

20

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTY FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR PALMETTO COUNTY, FLORIDA

CRIMINAL DIVISION

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Prosecution,

v. Case No. 18-54818-H

JORDAN BROOKS,

Defendant.

/

SWORN STATEMENT OF JERI/JERRY GORDON

My name is Jeri/Jerry Gordon. I am Riley Gordon’s parent. I have been married to my 1

spouse Casey Gordon for 20 years and I worked as a Guidance Counselor at Summer Creek High 2

School. Riley was the center of our world. Almost 3 years ago, our son died in a car crash at the 3

hands of a drunk driver. He was 17. It has taken so much for all of us to get to where we are. Just 4

as we established a new normal, Riley was taken from us. She was a bright and strong presence in 5

this world. She was a gymnast for years and it was the perfect sport for her level of energy and 6

willingness to try new things. I always referred to her as a “force”. When Riley was in a room, you 7

knew it. 8

I have my master’s in psychology and a bachelors in both psychology and school 9

administration. I love working with students and being in a school environment. It was not easy 10

on Riley having their parent working at the high school, but Riley and I managed to stay out of 11

each other’s way for the most part. In my role at the school, I handle a wide variety of 12

responsibilities from schedules of students to managing disciplinary records to working with 13

students through some of the trials and tribulations of the teenage world. No easy task, but 14

something I am passionate about. 15

21

Riley and Jordan have known each other since they were freshmen in high school. Riley 16

was a loving spirit and is so kind to everyone. I think she thought she was adopting Jordan or 17

something. I was immediately concerned that my child had befriended Jordan but was hopeful that 18

Riley could be a good influence on Jordan. But honestly, I always felt like Jordan had been a bad 19

influence on Riley since the day they met. Growing up and throughout middle school Riley was a 20

great student, great kid, always came to me and told me everything. Jordan was no stranger to the 21

administration at this school. Between the pranks and the ego, Jordan spent a decent amount of 22

time in the front office. I would characterize Jordan as manipulative. Jordan always seemed to be 23

charming his/her way in to or out of something, at school or otherwise. S/he would always try 24

talking me into letting Riley stay out late or go somewhere I would never allow. At school Jordan 25

would try to charm his/her way out of trouble for being in the hallways during class filming 26

something. You could just feel this child scheming. To say Jordan had an ego would be minimizing 27

his/her personality. It was really quite disturbing to watch, and it made me nervous for what Riley 28

would get talked in to because Riley didn’t see the same things of Jordan that I did. Once Riley 29

and Jordan became friends they started pulling pranks and doing stupid stunts all the time. I saw 30

the videos on VideoHub. I made an account to keep up with what Riley was doing. 31

Riley and I were very close. She would tell me about the stunts that Jordan would pull – 32

dancing in the middle of traffic, illegally climbing on train cars in the abandoned train yard, and 33

other things that were dangerous. She also mentioned a few times that Jordan would drink at parties 34

on the weekend. This made Riley very angry because Jordan knew about Riley’s brother and didn’t 35

seem to have any sensitivity to Riley’s opposition to drinking. Jordan’s parents let him/her do 36

whatever him/her wanted—stay out late, access the internet with no restrictions, and drive other 37

people even before Jordan had a license. I tried to invite Jordan’s parents over for dinner one day, 38

22

to get to know them since Riley was spending so much time with Jordan, but Jordan’s parents 39

wouldn’t even answer my phone calls. 40

These last few months all Riley did was spend time with Jordan, film things on their 41

phones, and spend hours on social media counting their likes. We used to always discuss our day 42

at dinner, however, the past couple months Riley seemed to not be able to put her/his phone down, 43

even at the dinner table. Riley started talking back to me and became a lot more distant. I thought 44

Riley told me everything, but now I’m not sure. Riley started spending all her time on VideoLab, 45

posting videos and silly stunts, trying to get more likes than Jordan. She even got a trespassing 46

warning from the city. It was so unlike her. I grounded her and made her do some community 47

service projects, so she could learn some more valuable ways to spend her time. Riley always 48

pushed back on discipline, but that is what teenagers do. 49

A few weeks before the incident, Jordan was over at our house and uploading some videos 50

with Riley. I heard Jordan suggest that they do “Heart in My Hands” challenge video while they 51

were riding a golf cart on the football field. I looked up what this was and saw various videos of 52

kids running and jumping onto moving vehicles as they danced along to the song. I also recognized 53

this from things I had seen going on in the hallways at school. Riley said this was a bad idea and 54

that she wouldn’t want to get caught or get in trouble for something that silly. Jordan and Riley 55

knew I was home then, but Riley told me afterwards that the “Heart in My Hands” challenge was 56

over anyways, no one was doing them anymore. 57

The next thing I know I am looking at my daughter and Jordan in the front office because 58

they had gotten into a fight. I was so confused – my Riley? Riley was so calm and kind that I could 59

not believe what I was hearing. I grounded Riley and told her she couldn’t hang out with Jordan 60

any more. Jordan was a bad influence and would only drag Riley down. Riley told me they had 61

23

talked afterwards and patched things up, but I still had my reservations about Jordan. Jordan 62

showed up about a week later and wanted to talk to Riley. I allowed it because I wanted to give 63

Riley the opportunity to remove Jordan from her life and get closure on that relationship. However, 64

on the way out of the house, I heard Jordan yell, “We can start planning your epic “Heart in My 65

Hands” challenge tomorrow! We will get that project moving, if you know what I mean.” 66

On the morning of August 31, 2018, Riley mentioned going to the Ocean Sands football 67

game later that day. I know Riley doesn’t like sports and this was likely something she was 68

manipulated into by Jordan. I told Riley she couldn’t go because she was still grounded. There was 69

no way I was letting her out of the house with Jordan. Riley got very mad at me and told me I was 70

just pushing my negativity on her. Again, a very normal reaction for a teenager. My spouse and I 71

had an event to go to that evening, so I told Riley to stay home and think of some more constructive 72

ways to spend a Friday night. I just knew Jordan was bad news, and I hate that I was proven right 73

in this way. My worst fears about Jordan’s influence in Riley’s life were confirmed when a police 74

officer showed up at our house in the early hours of September 1. 75

The worst part of this whole thing, other than losing Riley, was that Jordan did this on 76

purpose for likes on social media. Riley was talked into climbing on the roof of the car as a stunt 77

and Jordan knocked her off to prove something. Just days after Riley passed away, Jordan actually 78

posted video of the whole incident on VideoHub as a public video. It got over 10,000 likes in a 79

matter of hours. The comments people left reflected the shock that someone could be so heartless. 80

I took a screenshot to send to my spouse because I couldn’t believe what I was seeing. The video 81

was deleted by the afternoon. I miss Riley every day, and I know Jordan was responsible for the 82

accident. 83

24

84

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,

Jeri/Jerry Gordon

Jeri/Jerry Gordon

25

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTY FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR PALMETTO COUNTY, FLORIDA

CRIMINAL DIVISION

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Prosecution,

v. Case No. 18-54818-H

JORDAN BROOKS,

Defendant.

/

SWORN STATEMENT OF JORDAN BROOKS

My name is Jordan Brooks. I am a senior at Summer Creek High School. I am on the honor 1

roll at school and am ranking in the top 10% of my class. I have an interest in film and videography 2

– I have a really popular VideoLab channel I am really proud of. I have about 8,500 followers and 3

get more every day. I met Riley Gordon in journalism class our Freshman year. We quickly became 4

friends. Riley also had a love for film. We both wanted to pursue careers doing something with 5

videography. We also liked to have fun. I wouldn’t say we were class clowns, but we were 6

constantly pulling pranks on each other and our friends. Just doing silly stunts like jumping on 7

things and sliding down hand rails. Riley was always the first one to break out his phone and start 8

filming our stunts. We started off with a joint VideoLab account and then decided to branch out 9

and do our own things last year. We would still collaborate on stunts sometimes, but I would say 10

we had a healthy competition going to see who could get the most views on a stunt. We would 11

film for each other, improve on each other’s ideas – we helped each other out. We were best 12

friends. 13

That is not to say we didn’t have some rough spots. First, Mr./Mrs. Gordon really had it 14

out for me. I don’t know what I ever did to make her/him not like me, but the hate was real. I 15

26

always try to be nice and respectful towards adults, but like my dad always tells me, “You can’t 16

make everyone like you.” Riley said that it was because I was a “bad influence” on Riley. Riley 17

was her own person. You were not going to make Riley do anything she didn’t want to do. We 18

actually used to laugh about the idea that I could influence anything Riley did. Mr./Mrs. Gordon 19

is just really strict and couldn’t take a joke. Second, Riley and I had some creative differences. 20

Sometimes Riley had ideas I didn’t like about stunts, and vice versa. The biggest fight we got in 21

was over a roof jump stunt we were supposed to do, but Riley was trying to do it by herself. She 22

took my whole plan for a joint project and tried to do it herself. So yeah, I got mad. We got in a 23

little fight, I told her I would get her, and then we moved along. I was just emotional and in a blur 24

of anger. I don’t even know what I meant by “get her”. I am a little dramatic sometimes, I guess. 25

On August 31, 2018, I attended my high school’s football game at our rival school, Ocean 26

Sands High School. I’m not really into sports, but everyone was going to be there and my followers 27

like seeing me out and about. I’m not saying I’m a celebrity or anything, people just know me. I 28

drove my car and Riley rode with me. Riley seemed a little fidgety all night. When I asked what 29

was up, she told me she had a fight with her parent and had snuck out. Mr./Mrs. Gordon needed to 30

lighten up so I just high-fived Riley for being a rebel. After the game, we hung out with some 31

friends in the parking lot for about an hour, stopped by a friend's party for a few minutes, and then 32

I was going to drop Riley at home. I had maybe 2 beers at the party. Riley never drinks, and she 33

was actually pretty mad at me for drinking anything at the party. It was not a big deal and I was 34

fine to drive. Parker and Harper were following me to Riley’s because they live in the same area. 35

Nothing too exciting. 36

On our way home, Riley and I decided to film a dance challenge video to the “Heart in My 37

Hands” song. Everyone was doing it lately. As influencers, we needed to get on the trend to stay 38

27

relevant. Riley had been playing with some ideas for something that would get a lot of views – she 39

was behind me in followers and was trying to catch up. She told me to turn down a back street and 40

just keep driving. I turned the song on real loud in my car and we were just singing along while 41

Riley was filming with her phone. After about 30 seconds, Riley told me to slow down. Riley then 42

said she was going to climb onto the hood and dance while I drove. I laughed because I didn’t 43

think she would actually do it, but she climbed right out the window with her phone and onto the 44

roof of my car. I took my foot off the gas and slowed down. I didn’t have time to tell her no – I 45

didn’t think it was a good idea. We usually took time to plan things that had any possibility of 46

being dangerous. This was so spontaneous, but she was already up there, so I went with it. I took 47

my foot off the gas so I could slowly get my speed down. I don’t remember how fast I was going, 48

I was just focused on driving safely. I still remember telling Riley to be careful as she was known 49

for being clumsy. 50

I had all the windows down in my car and was blaring the song “Heart in My Hands.” In 51

my right hand I was steering, I don’t remember letting go of the steering wheel. In my left hand, I 52

held my phone outside my window and took pictures of Riley while she was dancing on the roof 53

of my car. After about 30 seconds of dancing, I saw a small animal fly from left to right in front 54

of my car. I swerved to the right and hit my brakes. The car jerked to the right but did not 55

immediately slow down. The brakes just didn’t seem to work. My brake service light had come on 56

about a week ago but that happened before, then seemed to just go away, so I figured it was no big 57

deal. I saw Riley fall off to the right side of the car and heard a bang and felt a jolt. It all happened 58

so fast. I thought maybe I had hit the animal, but when I looked up I saw that I had actually hit the 59

light pole when I swerved. I was in so much pain, but I had to make sure Riley was okay. I put the 60

car in park and immediately got out and saw a dark figure, which I knew was Riley, lying on the 61

28

road about 10 – 15 feet behind my car. Parker’s car was still behind us and its headlights were 62

shining right in my eyes. I ran over to Riley. Riley wasn’t moving and had blood all over her head. 63

She was completely unresponsive. I immediately screamed for help while trying to do something 64

to help stop Riley’s head from bleeding. Parker Moore and Harper Davis jumped out of their car 65

and ran up to us. Harper was the calmest of the three of us and checked Riley’s pulse and said she 66

didn’t have a pulse. I was in complete shock as Harper started CPR and that whole time is just a 67

blur. We waited a few minutes to see if we could somehow get a response out of Riley and called 68

911. 69

After the police came, I was completely in shock over everything that was going on and I 70

guess I just blacked out. Next thing I know, I woke up in the hospital. At the hospital, the doctors 71

wanted to make sure I did not have any internal bleeding because it was hard for me to stand up 72

straight and I still felt pretty dizzy and shaken up over what happened. I was annoyed though as I 73

just wanted to stay with Riley. I had bruising on my stomach, so they got an x-ray of my chest and 74

abdomen. I did not have anything broken so they gave me some pain medications but wanted me 75

to stay in observation for a couple of hours. While I was waiting, an officer came to the hospital 76

and asked me what happened. He took notes and then left. After I had been in the hospital for about 77

an hour, I was told by a nurse that they were ordering a blood test. Apparently, this was standard 78

procedure. My parents came to the hospital just as I was being discharged. 79

Apparently, there's rumors going around now that I'm some sort of murderer. Parker is 80

telling everyone I did it on purpose to get more views – that I swerved to knock Riley down to get 81

some laughs and more views on my VideoLab account. That is insane. Yes, I am competitive, but 82

that doesn’t mean I am crazy. I loved Riley – she was my best friend. I would never put her in a 83

position to get hurt. To make matters worse, the video of the accident still ended up posted on my 84

29

account – someone must have hacked into my phone. I immediately deleted it from the account 85

and on my phone. No one needed to see that, and I didn’t want to have that memory on my phone. 86

The blood test came back that I had a blood alcohol level of 0.019. I wasn’t impaired at all. 87

I know that I shouldn’t have had those beers – that is all I should be in trouble for, if anything. I 88

remember everything that happened – Riley climbed out of the window without me knowing, 89

something jumped in front of my car, and I couldn’t stop. For all I know, Riley might have tried 90

to flip off of my car – that was her thing. This was all an accident. I am no murderer. This whole 91

thing is just a big misunderstanding. 92

93

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,

Jordan Brooks

JORDAN BROOKS

30

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTY FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR PALMETTO COUNTY, FLORIDA

CRIMINAL DIVISION

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Prosecution,

v. Case No. 18-54818-H

JORDAN BROOKS,

Defendant.

/

SWORN STATEMENT OF DR. ALEX MARTIN, PE, PhD

My name is Dr. Alex Martin. I am fifty-two years old and have been working as an engineer for 1

twenty-five years. I received my bachelor of science degree in mechanical engineering and a 2

Master’s in engineering from Sunshine Technical University. After graduation summa cum laude 3

from STU I received my PhD in in engineering from Peach Tech in Georgia. I worked for 4

automobile manufacturers for the next fifteen years. My work was mostly in design and quality 5

control. Over these fifteen years I worked on virtually every car part and system. I attained the 6

level of professional engineer (PE), the highest level of expert verification in engineering. 7

Ten years ago, I left my career in the automotive industry to start my own consulting 8

company – Martin Forensic Engineering, Inc. Most of our work is in accident reconstruction and 9

failure analysis. We are hired to examine vehicles, roadways, equipment and determine what 10

happened. For example, if two vehicles crashed into each other but there was a dispute as to who 11

was at fault, we would analyze the crush damage on the vehicles, the roadway, and any other 12

evidence to try and reconstruct exactly what happened according to engineering principles. Failure 13

31

analysis would involve examining a vehicle or piece of equipment to determine why the object 14

failed to perform. All of our clients are attorneys, insurance companies, and corporations. 15

In this case, I was hired to determine whether Jordan Brooks’ car failed to perform as 16

designed. I did not visit the road where the accident happened because I was not hired until two 17

months after the accident occurred. I figured that I would not be able to obtain any useful 18

information from the roadway since it had been so long. The same is true for the electronic data 19

recorder (EDR) or “black box.” I did not download the data from the car as it was too late. That 20

data must be downloaded right away to have any sort of reliability. However, those boxes are 21

notoriously inaccurate. Call me old school but there is no substitute for getting behind the wheel 22

and testing the vehicle yourself. My understanding is that an officer downloaded the EDR 23

information but you cannot be sure that the data is from the actual event. The car may have been 24

moved prior to downloading the EDR and that would ruin the results. Each time a significant event 25

occurs, the EDR writes over the previous event. I did review the entirety of the report from 26

Sergeant Mickelson’s investigation. Again, I would make note that EDR data should be collected 27

immediately and does not have 100% reliability as the vehicle may have been moved in the time 28

between the crash and when Sgt. Mickelson downloaded the data. The short acceleration noted 29

could be from any time following the incident if the vehicle was driven. 30

For my investigation, I examined the vehicle which was stored at Jordan Brooks’ home 31

after being released from vehicle impound. I do not know if it had been driven at all, however, the 32

airbags had been replaced. I examined the vehicle for about two hours. My examination included 33

visual inspection, measurements and testing all the various vehicle systems, however, my focus 34

was on the braking system. Upon my visual inspection of the vehicle, the left rear brake light 35

appeared inoperable in addition to the obvious front-end damage sustained in the crash. There was 36

32

no damage to the area surrounding the brake lights and I determined that the light had burned out. 37

I ran diagnostic tests on the vehicle and my equipment indicated an issue with the anti-lock brake 38

system (ABS). The 2010 ARC Conquest is a Front Wheel Drive vehicle, meaning the vehicle is 39

powered by the spinning of the front axle, pulling the vehicle forward. This is in contrast to a Rear 40

Wheel Drive vehicle, meaning the vehicle is pushed by the rotation of the rear axle. With a front 41

wheel drive vehicle, there is 70% braking capacity in the front of the vehicle, and 30% in the rear. 42

If the front brakes are not functioning properly, this puts the vehicle at a severely diminished 43

braking capacity of only 30%. Also notable in the case, specifically related to the 2010 ARC 44

Conquest, is that this is not the first report of this vehicle demonstrating issues with the ABS. In 45

my report I included an article about a similar incident with a comparable vehicle. 46

The final piece of my examination was to drive the vehicle. The car was put in reverse and I 47

backed out of the driveway. When applying the brakes to stop reversing, there was no issue. I put 48

the vehicle into drive and began driving in a straight line at 5 mph. When I applied the brakes at 49

this speed, the brakes did seem to perform properly. I then tested the brakes from 10 mph, 15 mph, 50

and 20 mph. At 10 mph the brakes performed adequately. I was able to brake in five feet. An 51

acceptable stopping distance for this speed. 52

At 15 mph, the vehicle underperformed. An acceptable stopping distance is eleven feet at this 53

speed, however, the vehicle took twenty feet to stop. At 20 mph, the vehicle performed even worse. 54

An acceptable stopping distance is nineteen feet, however, the vehicle took forty feet to stop. This 55

would confirm that there was a failure of the ABS. Generally speaking, the ABS of a vehicle does 56

not “kick in” until 12-15 mph. Therefore, at the 5 mph and 10 mph, the ABS is not involved in 57

braking and so it did not affect the braking performance. 58

33

The defendant’s mother provided me with a copy of the most recent vehicle maintenance 59

record they had performed on the Conquest. This report indicates the brakes were diminished, but 60

still functional at the time of the inspection. However, depending on the thoroughness of the 61

vehicle maintenance inspection and how the vehicle is driven, it is very possible there was much 62

less life on these brakes than indicated. I also noted the tire tread was low and a rotation was 63

recommended. Given the tire tread and condition of the brakes, I would conclude the condition of 64

the vehicle was a significant contributing factor to this accident occurring. 65

It is my understanding that Jordan Brooks believes he/she was driving 10 mph and that Harper 66

Davis thinks Jordan Brooks was driving about 5 mph. In my experience as a forensic engineer, it 67

is common that witnesses are inaccurate about speed, time, and distance. As a person experiences 68

an event, especially a traumatic event, it would be unusual for them to be 100% accurate as to 69

speed, time, and distance. Jordan Brooks was likely traveling above 12 mph. At this speed, the 70

ABS failed and that is why Jordan Brooks felt like the brakes didn’t work. I cannot determine the 71

exact speed Jordan Brooks was traveling. Based on the front end impact, I would determine the 72

vehicle was traveling at approximately 8 mph upon impact with the pole, showing an attempt to 73

slow the vehicle. 74

In examining the report, diagram, and limited photos from the scene provided by Sgt. 75

Mickelson, I focused largely on the pictures on the curb. Sgt. Mickelson attributed the tire marks 76

on the curb to an acceleration upon hitting the curb. In my professional opinion, this is incorrect. 77

The pattern of the tire marks is evenly distributed, showing where the front and rear tired made 78

contact with the curb. The marks darken in an upward motion, indicating an attempt, albeit with 79

diminished braking capacity, to apply the brakes once contact with the curb was made. 80

Additionally, braking can be identified by the pattern showing darkness on the inner part of the 81

34

mark with lightening happening towards the outer part of the mark. When the car brakes, it forces 82

the front of the car down, lifting the outer wall of the tire. This would certainly cause this tire tread 83

pattern on the curb. I would agree that the car was maneuvered with a degree of intentionality, 84

given that the driver was trying to avoid an obstruction in the road. 85

I was paid $5,500 for my examination of this vehicle and an additional $1,500 to testify at 86

trial. 87

88

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,

Alex Martin

Alex Martin

35

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTY FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR PALMETTO COUNTY, FLORIDA

CRIMINAL DIVISION

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Prosecution,

v. Case No. 18-54818-H

JORDAN BROOKS,

Defendant.

/

SWORN STATEMENT OF HARPER DAVIS

My name is Harper Davis and I am a senior at Summer Creek High School. I am a lifeguard 1

and certified in CPR. I work part-time during the school year and full-time in the summer. I have 2

been friends with Jordan Brooks since elementary school. I met Riley Gordon just this year in my 3

video production class. Riley was a really special person. Her/His kindness, love for life, and 4

spontaneity were some of my favorite things about her/him. 5

Riley and Jordan have been friends since freshman year. They’re really close, but lately 6

there has been a lot of tension between them. They are both really popular on VideoHub, which is 7

a video-based social media platform and cloud storage system. They always joked about having a 8

healthy competition, but by my observation, it was anything but. Jordan was always pretty nice 9

about it, but Riley was always looking for ways to out-do Jordan. Jordan does have a competitive 10

side, but Jordan is also really secure – s/he has a bunch of followers and doesn’t have a lot to prove. 11

On Friday, August 31, 2018, I went to our school’s football game against our rival, Ocean 12

Sands High School. I rode to the game with Parker Moore because we live in the same 13

neighborhood. Parker and I have known each other forever – our parents are friends, so we have 14

36

been on family vacations together, spent holidays and birthdays together, and hang out on the 15

weekends all the time. Anyway, after the game, I hung out in the parking lot with Jordan Brooks, 16

Riley Gordon, Parker Moore, and about a dozen other students from High School. We heard of a 17

party close by another senior was throwing so we decided to stop by. I didn’t know the person 18

throwing the party. At the party, a few of us drank a little bit of beer, me included. Although I don't 19

remember whether or not I saw Jordan drinking any, I remember Jordan always having a drink in 20

his/her hand. Jordan has never really been a drinker. I know Riley wasn't drinking as she told me 21

her brother actually died as a result of a drunk driving accident. After about an hour or an hour and 22

a half, we decided to go home. It was getting late and Riley's dad was super strict and didn't allow 23

her to be out past midnight. Jordan and Riley got in Jordan’s car and then I got back in Parker’s 24

car. I hadn’t seen Parker much at the party. When we got into the car, I noticed that Parker did 25

smelled like marijuana, but I didn’t see him/her smoking anything at any point that night. I figured 26

it was just from the party – there were some kids smoking in the back yard. I stayed far away from 27

that – it’s not my scene. 28

After about ten minutes of driving, Jordan’s car started to slow down. Parker honked at 29

them as he/she slowed down his/her car as well. We were directly behind them. It seemed like they 30

were going really slow, like 5 mph, but I didn’t look at Parker’s speedometer. A snail could have 31

moved down the road faster. At first, I wondered if Jordan was doing this just so Riley's dad would 32

get mad for him/her being late. I checked my phone for the time and saw that Riley had sent me a 33

text that said, “Start filming!!” Then I saw Riley crawling out of the passenger side window. I 34

immediately knew then what they were doing. Riley and I had been watching dance challenge 35

videos online in video production class earlier that week. In some of the videos, people were 36

getting out of their moving cars and dancing on the street. We were talking about how we could 37

37

do them better. I forget who came up with the idea, but we talked about dancing on a moving car 38

instead of in the street. We both agreed that would be crazy and that it would totally become a 39

trending video on social media if it was done right. Riley commented that it might be just the thing 40

to get more views than Jordan to, “Shut Jordan up.” I didn’t think Riley would actually do it. 41

Apparently, there was some article circulating about people being hurt/killed making these videos, 42

however, it seems there's an article suggesting that everything nowadays is dangerous. 43

I couldn’t really see Riley once she got up on the hood of Jordan’s car. My phone memory 44

was full and wouldn’t let me record video, but I did take a few still shots. I knew Riley would be 45

mad I didn’t get a video, but I did what I could. I’m not sure how long it was but eventually I saw 46

Jordan swerve to the right. Right after s/he swerved I think I saw an ibis fly into the street and fly 47

onto the road. A few seconds later, I saw Jordan’s brake lights and it seemed like s/he came to stop 48

pretty quickly. I believe it was to avoid hitting the ibis. Jordan slammed into a pole. Because of 49

the street light and the glare, I couldn’t see where Riley was. Everything happened so fast. Parker 50

stopped his/her car and put it in park. We both got out of the car. I heard someone scream “Help!” 51

and we immediately started running towards the car. When I got closer I saw Riley on the ground 52

and she wasn’t moving. Jordan was trying to put his shirt around Riley’s head. 53

When I got to Riley, she was in really bad shape. There was blood all over her head and 54

she was so pale. I checked Riley’s pulse and I couldn’t find one. I tried to perform CPR but no 55

luck. A few minutes later, I tried again. Jordan and Parker were kind of stunned and stood there 56

not knowing what to do – maybe they thought Riley was faking it? I called 911. I told them our 57

friend had fallen off the hood of a car and was unresponsive. I told Jordan and Parker that Riley 58

was dead. They were both in total shock, I don’t remember if they said anything while we waited. 59

Once the paramedics arrived and the shock set it, Jordan passed out and was taken to the hospital. 60

38

I was shocked as well by the whole series of events but something inside me just called me to 61

action. Unfortunately, it wasn’t enough to save Riley. 62

A few days after the whole thing, it looked like a video was posted where Riley was 63

standing on the car. It looks like it would have been filmed from Jordan’s phone. At first, I was so 64

mad that Jordan would post that, but when I called him/her, Jordan was bawling, saying that 65

someone had hacked into his/her account and posted all of his/her video uploads that automatically 66

uploaded to the cloud. 67

I feel so bad for Jordan. This was not his/her fault. Riley was so spontaneous and was 68

always going to do what she set her mind to, regardless of safety. Jordan couldn’t control that 69

Riley climbed onto the hood of the car and Jordan was driving so slow from what I saw. Jordan 70

did what s/he could to control the situation, but Jordan couldn’t control Riley. I love Parker, but 71

Parker is way off on this whole situation. S/he kept saying that Jordan pressured Riley to do the 72

stunt and then jerked the wheel to throw Riley from the vehicle. Sure, Jordan has a competitive 73

streak, but would never hurt Riley. At the end of the day, they were best friends. Even after that 74

little fight they had, they bounced back and started collaborating on some projects they were going 75

to do. I think Parker is just trying to stay out of trouble for the weed they found in his/her car. 76

77

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,

Harper Davis Harper Davis

39

Exhibits

40

Exhibit A – Photos from Harper Davis’ Phone

Timestamp: 23:14.28 31 August 2018 Timestamp: 23:15.30 31 August 2018

Figure 1 Timestamp: 23:15.55 31 August 2018

41

Exhibit B – Vehicle Multi-Point Inspection Report

42

Exhibit C – VideoLab Screen Shots - Riley Gordon

43

Exhibit D – VideoLab Screen Shot - Jordan Brooks

44

Exhibit E: Incident Report from Summer Creek High School

45

Exhibit F: Trespass Notice

46

Exhibit G: SocialHub Screenshot – Account of Harper Davis

47

Exhibit H: Police Report from Ocean City Police Department – Page 1 of 4

Page 2 of 4

48

Photo:

Front tire marks

Rear tire marks

49

Page 3 of 4

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

EVENT DATA RECORDER

Pre-Crash Data -5.0 to 0.0 sec (Event Record)

Time Stamp

(sec)

Speed, Vehicle

Indicated

(MPH)

Engine RPM Service Brake

(On, Off)

-5.0 13 1800 Off

-4.0 12 1600 Off

-3.0 13 1700 Off

-2.0 15 2400 Off

-1.0 17 3200 Off

0.0 0 750 Off

50

Page 4 of 4

Received by OCPD 13 September 2018

Delivered to: Sgt. Val Mickelson

Blood Draw Observed by: Officer Mallory

Diaz

51

Exhibit I: Official Report of Expert Alex Martin – Page 1 of 3

Martin Forensic Engineering, Inc.

Alex Martin, PE, PhD (555) 432-1678

Vehicle Inspection Report

Client Counsel for Jordan Brooks

Year Make and Model 2010 Arc Conquest

VIN PD478121

Odometer 105,287

Visual Inspection

Significant front end damage consistent with front end collision. Rear left brake

light inoperable. Tires adequate. Normal wear and tear for eight year old vehicle.

Diagnostic Code Scan

Diagnostic Trouble Code: ABS System. No other trouble codes indicated.

Vehicle Braking Performance

Speed Braking Distance

10 mph 5 feet

15 mph 20 feet

20 mph 40 feet

Conclusion

Anti-lock braking system failed at 15 mph and 20 mph. At these speeds, the

wheels of the vehicle locked causing reduced adhesion between tires and road

surface. Braking distance effected greatly and made vehicle extremely difficult to

steer while stopping.

Notes

Consulted Pages 1-4 of Sergeant Val Mickelson in addition to conducting

assessment on the vehicle.

52

Page 2 of 3

53

Page 3 of 3

CURRICULUM VITAE OF DR. ALEX MARTIN, PE, PhD

Formal Education

• Engineering Doctorate, with High Honors

o Peach Tech University, 1992

• Engineering Masters, with Honors

o Sunshine Technical University, 1989

• Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering, summa cum laude

o Sunshine Technical University, 1987

Licensure and Certification

• Licensed Professional Engineer in Florida, #42AJKD

• Board Certified in Forensic Engineering by American Forensic Engineer Association

• Certified Fire and Explosion Investigation, National Society of Fire Experts

• Certified in Traffic Accident Reconstruction by the Accident Reconstruction Academy

Professional Experience

• Martin Forensic Engineering, Inc.

o Chief Executive Officer and Principal Investigator, 2008-2018

• Nito Automotive, Inc.

o Automotive Quality Engineer, 2005-2008

▪ Reviewed transmission systems and final assembly line for Nito’s sedans and coupes

o Product Design Engineer, 2001-2005

▪ Lead Design Engineer for Nito Model 11 Sedan

• DNW Motor Cars, Inc.

o Lead Automotive Mechanical Engineer, 1997-2001

▪ Oversaw mechanical engineer work for all product lines

o Junior Mechanical Engineer, 1993-1997

▪ Worked on braking systems for DNW U Coupe and V Sedan.

Articles Authored

• Failure Analysis of Automotive Air Conditioning Systems, Automotive Design Journal, (Peer

Reviewed), 2016

• A Forensic Engineer’s Guide to Cross Examination, Forensic Engineer Monthly, June 2015

• Determining Acceleration in Passenger Cars, Journal of The Accident Reconstruction Academy, 2009

• The Need for Overhaul in Anti-Lock Braking System Standards, Automotive Design Journal, (Doctoral

Candidate Dissertation), 1991

54

APPLICABLE STATUTES

Fla. Statute § 782.071. Vehicular Homicide.

“Vehicular homicide” is the killing of a human being, or the killing o f an unborn child by any

injury to the mother, caused by the operation of a motor vehicle by another in a reckless manner

likely to cause the death of, or great bodily harm to, another.

Fla. Statute § 782.07. Manslaughter.

The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another,

without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which

such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder, according to the provisions of this

chapter, is manslaughter, a felony of the second degree.

55

JURY INSTRUCTIONS

MANSLAUGHTER

§ 782.07, Fla. Stat.

To prove the crime of Manslaughter, the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable

doubt:

1. RILEY GORDON is dead.

2. The death of RILEY GORDON was caused by the culpable negligence of JORDAN BROOKS.

The defendant cannot be guilty of manslaughter by committing a merely negligent act.

I will now define “culpable negligence” for you. Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there

is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence. But culpable

negligence is more than a failure to use ordinary care toward others. In order for negligence to be culpable, it

must be gross and flagrant. Culpable negligence is a course of conduct showing reckless disregard of human

life, or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or such an entire want of care as to raise a

presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences, or which shows wantonness or recklessness, or a

grossly careless disregard for the safety and welfare of the public, or such an indifference to the rights of others

as is equivalent to an intentional violation of such rights.

The negligent act or omission must have been committed with an utter disregard for the safety of others.

Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have

known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury.

7.9 VEHICULAR HOMICIDE § 782.071, Fla. Stat.

To prove the crime of Vehicular Homicide, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a

reasonable doubt:

1. a. RILEY GORDON is dead.

b. An unborn child is dead by injury to the mother.

c. An unborn child is dead.

2. The death was caused by the operation of a motor vehicle by JORDAN BROOKS.

3. JORDAN BROOKS operated the motor vehicle in a reckless manner likely to cause the death of or great

bodily harm to another person.

The State does not have to prove the defendant intended to harm or injure anyone. However, the reckless

operation of a motor vehicle requires the State to prove more than a failure to use ordinary care. A “reckless manner”

means in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property.

Enhanced penalty. § 782.071(1)(b) or § 782.072(2), Fla. Stat. Give if applicable.

56

If you find the defendant guilty of [Vehicular] [Vessel] Homicide, you must then determine whether the State has

further proved beyond a reasonable doubt that:

1. At the time of the accident, (defendant) knew, or should have known, that the accident occurred; and

2. (Defendant) failed to give information and render aid as required by law. (Read applicable portion of §

316.062, Fla. Stat., as charged in information or indictment.)

However, the State is not required to prove (defendant) knew that the accident resulted in injury or death.

Definitions.

Give if applicable. § 782.071(2), Fla. Stat.

An “unborn child” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in

the womb.

57

RULES OF STATE

COMPETITION

1

RULES OF THE STATE COMPETITION

Rule I: Team Composition/Presentation

1) The competition is open to students currently enrolled in grades 9-12 in Florida schools. All students on

a team must be enrolled in the same school in the district they are representing.

2) Only one team may represent a high school at any level of competition.

3) Teams shall consist of six to eight students including alternates to be used in any manner deemed

appropriate by the teacher and coach, as long as the distribution of duties does not conflict with

competition Rule IV. For each trial round, teams shall use three students as attorneys and three students

as witnesses.

4) Students may switch roles for different rounds of trials (i.e. a student may be an attorney for the defense

and a witness for the Prosecution during separate rounds).

5) Each team must be fully prepared to argue both sides of the case. (Plaintiff/Prosecution and

Defense/Defendant) using six team members.

6) Students of either gender may portray the role of any witness. The competition will strive to make roles

gender neutral. However, some cases will warrant a specific gender role. In such cases, students of either

gender may portray the role but the gender of the witness may not change from the case as presented.

7) Team Roster/"Roll" Call

Copies of the Team Roster form must be completed and returned prior to arrival at the competition

site. Teams should be identified by the code assigned at registration.

Before beginning a trial, teams will be asked to prepare a "Roll Call" list to identify the students

participating in each round and their corresponding roles. No information identifying team origin

should appear on the list.

8) All teacher coaches and students must attend the mandatory general assembly/orientation. Attorney

coaches who accompany their team must also be present.

9) Immediately following the mandatory general assembly, all teachers and attorney coaches affiliated with

participating Mock Trial teams must attend a Teacher and Coaches Meeting, which will include a review

of the rules and power matching system.

2

Rule II: The Case

1) The case may contain any or all of the following stipulations: documents, narratives, exhibits, witness

statements, etc.

2) The stipulations (and fact statements, if any) may not be disputed at the trial. Witness statements may not be

altered.

3) All witnesses must be called.

Rule III: Trial Presentation

1) The trial proceedings will be governed by the Florida Mock Trial Simplified Rules of Evidence. Other more

complex rules may not be raised at the trial. Questions or interpretations of these rules are within the discretion

of the State Mock Trial Advisory Committee, whose decision is final.

2) Each witness is bound by the facts contained in his/her own witness statement, the Statement of Facts, if

present, and/or any necessary documentation relevant to his/her testimony. Fair extrapolations may be

allowed, provided reasonable inference may be made from the witness' statement. If, in direct examination,

an attorney asks a question which calls for extrapolated information pivotal to the facts at issue, the

information is subject to objection outside the scope of the problem.

If, on cross-examination, an attorney asks for unknown information, the witness may or may not

respond, so long as any response is consistent with the witness' statement or affidavit and does not

materially affect the witness' testimony.

Adding facts that are inconsistent with the witness statement or with the Stipulated Facts and which

would be relevant with respect to any issue in the case is not permitted. Examples include, but are not

limited to (a) creating a physical or mental disability, (b) giving a witness a criminal or bad record

when none is suggested by the statements, (c) creating facts which give a witness standing as an expert

and (d) materially changing the witness' profession, character, memory, mental or physical ability

from the witness’ statement by testifying to "recent changes."

3) If certain witnesses are stipulated to as experts, their expert qualifications may not be challenged or impeached

by the opposing side. However, their testimony concerning the facts of the case may be challenged.

4) On direct examination, the witness is limited to the facts given. If a witness testifies in contradiction to the

facts given in the witness statement, that testimony may be impeached on cross-examination by the opposition

through the correct use of the affidavit. The procedure is outlined in the Rules of Evidence.

5) On cross-examination, no restrictions will be made on the witness or the cross-examination, except that the

answer must be responsive and the witness can be impeached.

If the attorney who is cross-examining the witness asks a question, the answer to which is not contained

in the stipulations or affidavit then the witness may respond to that question with any answer as long

as the answer does not contradict or materially change the affidavit.

If the answer by the witness is contrary to the stipulations or the affidavit, the cross-examination

attorney may impeach the witness.

6) Use of voir dire examination of a witness is not permitted.

3

Rule IV: Student Attorneys

1) Team members are to evenly divide their duties. During any single round, each of the three attorneys will

conduct one direct and one cross; in addition, one will present the opening statements and another will

present closing arguments. In other words, the attorney duties for each team will be divided as follows:

a) Opening Statements

b) Direct/Re-direct Examination of Witness #1

c) Direct/Re-direct Examination of Witness #2

d) Direct/Re-direct Examination of Witness #3

e) Cross/Re-cross Examination of Witness #1

f) Cross/Re-cross Examination of Witness #2

g) Cross/Re-cross Examination of Witness #3

h) Closing Arguments

i) Prosecution’s optional closing rebuttal (see Rule XV)

Opening statements must be given by both sides at the beginning of the trial.

The attorney who will examine a particular witness on direct examination is the only person who

may make the objections to the opposing attorney's questions of that witness on cross examination,

and the attorney who will cross-examine a witness will be the only one permitted to make objections

during the direct examination of that witness.

Each team must call the three witnesses listed in the case materials. Witnesses must be called only by

their own team and examined by both sides. Witnesses may not be recalled.

2) Attorneys may use notes in presenting their cases. Witnesses are not permitted to use notes while testifying

during the trial.

3) To permit judges to hear and see better, attorneys will stand during opening and closing statements, direct and

cross-examinations, all objections, and whenever addressing the presiding judge. Students may move from

the podium only with the permission of the presiding judge.

Rule V: Swearing of Witnesses

The presiding judge will indicate that all witnesses are assumed to be sworn.

4

Rule VI: Case Materials

Students may read other cases, materials, and articles in preparation for the mock trial. However,

students may cite only the case materials given, and they may introduce into evidence only those

documents given in the official packet. In addition, students may not use, even for demonstrative

purposes, any materials that are not provided in the official packet. The following are not permitted:

props, costumes, enlargements, computers, phones, or electronic devices of any kind.

Rule VII: Trial Communication

Instructors, alternates, and observers shall not talk to, signal, communicate with, or coach their teams

during trial. This rule remains in force during any recess time that may occur. Team members within

the bar area may, among themselves, communicate during the trial; however, no disruptive

communication is allowed.

Non-team members, alternate team members, teachers, and coaches must remain outside the bar in the

spectator section of the courtroom. Only the six members participating in this round may sit inside

the bar.

Rule VIII: Trial Start Time

The starting time of any trial will not be delayed for longer than ten minutes unless approved by the

Mock Trial Coordinator. Incomplete teams will have to begin without their other members or with

alternates.

Rule IX: Conduct/Attire

All participants are expected to demonstrate proper courtroom decorum and display collegial

sportsmanlike conduct. Appropriate courtroom attire is required. Adherence to the Code of

Ethics is expected of all participants.

Rule X: Videotaping/Photography

Cameras and recording devices are permitted in certain courtrooms; however, the use of such

equipment may not be disruptive and must be approved in advance of the competition by The

Florida Law Related Education Association, Inc. When one team requests to videotape during a

trial, the opposing team must be consulted and their permission granted prior to taping.

Rule XI: Witnesses

Witnesses are to remain in the courtroom during the entire trial.

Rule XII: Jury Trial

For purposes of the competition, students will assume this is a jury trial. The scoring judges will act

as the jury. The presiding judge is the trial judge. Students should address the scoring judges and the

presiding judge.

5

Rule XIII: Viewing a Trial

Team members, alternates, attorney coaches, teacher coaches, and any other persons directly associated

with a mock trial team, except those authorized by the State Advisory Committee, are not allowed to

view other teams in competition so long as their team remains in the competition. Judges should

maintain order in the courtroom. If observers are disorderly, they will be asked to vacate the premises.

Rule XIV: Decisions

ALL DECISIONS OF THE JUDGES ARE FINAL.

Rule XV: Time Limits

1. A total time will be given to each side for direct, cross, re-direct, and re-cross.

The sequence and time limits are:

Opening Statements 5 minutes per side

Direct Examination and Re-direct

Examination (optional)

24 minutes total per side

Cross Examination and Re-cross

Examination (optional)

21 minutes total per side

Closing Argument 5 minutes per side

None of the foregoing may be waived except the optional times, nor the order changed.

The Plaintiff/Prosecution gives the opening statement first. The Plaintiff/Prosecution gives the closing

argument first; the Plaintiff/ Prosecution may reserve one minute or less of the closing time for a

rebuttal. Plaintiff/Prosecution must notify the judge before beginning closing argument if the rebuttal

time is requested. The Plaintiff’s/Prosecution’s rebuttal is limited to the scope of the defense’s closing

argument.

Attorneys are not required to use the entire time allotted to each part of the trial. Time remaining in

one part of the trial may not be transferred to another part of the trial.

2. Timing will halt during objections and responses to objections. Timing will not halt during the

admission of documentary evidence, unless there is an objection by opposing counsel. In the interest

of fairness, time extensions may be granted at the discretion of the presiding judge. All objections should

be argued in open court, not at the bench. Timing will resume after the judge has ruled on the objection.

Students should avoid the use of tactics to "run out the clock" during the admission of evidence. Judges

will be instructed to consider this in the Team Ethics scoring category.

3. A "timekeeper" will be provided and will keep the official time of the trial. The timekeeper's role will be

expanded to time the 10 minute debrief session for each side. This will help ensure that the schedule is

maintained. The timekeeper will announce to the court when time has expired in each of the separate

segments of the trial. Further, the timekeeper will bring a calculator to each courtroom and double check

6

the scores of scoring judges to ensure no ties. Judges will be instructed not to tie the teams during any

round. This will eliminate the issue of vote assignments during ties.

4. Teams are permitted to keep their own time. However, this will not be considered the official time of the

trial. Teams are not permitted to have an extra person be the timekeeper. One of the six participants

may be the timekeeper. Team timekeepers must not interfere with the trial or obstruct the view of any

witness.

Rule XVI: Judging

1) The presiding judge provides a mandatory performance vote during each round/trial for the team that he

or she feels gave the better performance during that round/trial.

The presiding judge does not award points to the teams. The presiding judge’s score sheet is a short

form on which the judge declares which team in his or her opinion exhibited the best performance.

The presiding judge should not announce the mandatory performance vote.

2) The scoring judges (jury) will utilize prepared score sheets to rate the quality of the students' performances

in the round/trial. The judges will be instructed to rate the performance of all witnesses and attorneys on the

team. Judges will not announce the presentation decision. Judges should make field notes on students'

performances during the round/trial.

3) Judges will be instructed not to tie teams in any round/trial. In the event scores are computed by the judges

and errors are found in the computations, score room staff will correct the errors and the corrected scores will

be the official scores after adding the individual categories/assessments.

4) The team receiving the majority of the performance votes from the three judges is declared the winner of the

trial/round.

5) To enhance the students' learning experience, the judges will be instructed to give each team an oral critique

after their deliberation. The decision on which team gave the better performance will not be given to the

participants. Students and their coaches will have the opportunity to meet informally with all the judges for

20 minutes (10 minutes per team) immediately following the round/trial. Score sheets should be completed

before the debriefing. Debriefing sessions will be timed by the timekeepers to avoid lengthy debriefs.

6) ALL DECISIONS OF THE JUDGES ARE FINAL.

7) The Team Ethics category will score students on the standards recognized in the Code of Ethical Conduct.

8) Attorney coaches of mock trial teams that do not advance from the local competition may not serve as a judge

in any capacity at any level of competition during the remainder of the competition year.

Teacher coaches of mock trial teams may not serve as judges in any capacity. Teacher coaches may

serve as timekeepers if their team does not advance from their local competition.

7

Rule XVII: Dispute Settlement

1) Reporting a Rules Violation Inside the Bar

If any team has serious reason to believe that a material rules violation has occurred during a trial

round, one student attorney member of the team shall communicate that a dispute exists to the

presiding judge immediately after the trial is over and before the critique begins. The scoring judges

will be excused from the courtroom, but should remain in the vicinity.

2) The presiding judge will ask that both teams remain in the courtroom. A dispute form shall be completed

by the student attorney to record in writing the nature of the dispute. The student attorney may

communicate with other student attorneys and witnesses on the team before preparing the form. No more

than 3 minutes may be taken to complete the form.

At no time in this process may team sponsors or coaches communicate or consult with the students.

Only student attorneys may invoke the dispute procedure.

3) Dispute Resolution Procedure

The presiding judge will review the written dispute and determine whether the dispute should be heard

or denied. If the dispute is denied, the judge will record the reasons for this, announce her/his decision

to the Court, retire to complete his/her score sheet (if applicable), and turn the dispute form in with the

score sheets. If the presiding judge feels the grounds for the dispute merit a hearing, the form will be

shown to opposing student counsel for their written response. After the team has recorded its response

and transmitted it to the judge, the judge will ask each team to designate a spokesperson. After the

spokespersons have had time (not to exceed three minutes) to prepare their arguments, the presiding

judge will conduct a hearing on the dispute, providing each team's spokesperson three minutes for a

presentation. The spokespersons may be questioned by the presiding judge. At no time in this process

may team sponsors or coaches communicate or consult with the student attorneys. After the hearing,

the presiding judge will adjourn the court and retire to consider her/his ruling on the dispute. The

judge will make a final decision as to whether or not a rules violation has occurred. That decision will

be recorded in writing on the dispute form. The presiding judge is not required to announce his/her

decision to students.

4) Effect of Violation on Score

If the presiding judge determines that a substantial rules violation has occurred, the presiding judge

will inform the scoring judges of the dispute and provide a summary of each team's argument. The

scoring judges will consider the dispute before finalizing their scores. The dispute may or may not

affect the final decision, but the matter will be left to the discretion of the scoring judges. All decisions

of the judges are FINAL.

Rule XVIII: Reporting a Rules Violation Outside the Bar

1. Disputes that (a) involve people other than student team members and (b) occur outside the bar

only during a trial round may be brought by teacher or attorney-coaches exclusively. Such disputes

must be entered on a complaint form and turned in to the registration area. The Mock Trial State

Coordinator and/or Advisory Committee will review the dispute for appropriate action, if needed.

Decisions and actions of the coordinator and/or committee are FINAL.

8

Rule XIX: Score Sheets/Ballots

a) Score sheets will be completed individually by scoring judges. The presiding judge will cast a mandatory

performance vote, but no points for each round. Judges may not inform students of score sheet results.

b) The term “ballot” will refer to the decision made by a scoring judge as to which team made the best

presentation in the round. The term “score sheet” is used in reference to the form on which speaker and

team points are recorded. Score sheets are to be completed individually by the scoring judges. Scoring

judges are not bound by the rulings of the presiding judge. The team that earns the highest points on

an individual judge’s score sheet is the winner of that ballot. The team that receives the majority of

the three ballots wins the round. The ballot votes determine the win/loss record of the team for power-

matching and ranking purposes. While the judging panel may deliberate on any special awards (i.e.,

Outstanding Attorney/Witness) the judging panel should not deliberate on individual scores.

c) Individual assessment categories including team ethics and team performance shall be judged on a 1-

10 scale by scoring judges only.

d) In the event of a mathematical error in tabulation by scoring judges, score room staff will enter the correct

tabulation of the scores.

Rule XX: State Competition Power Matching/Seeding Model

1) The Florida High School Mock Trial Competition uses a power matching system.

2) A random method of selection will determine the opponents in the first round. A power match system

will determine opponents for all other rounds. The two schools emerging with the strongest record from

the four rounds will advance to the final round. The first-place team will be determined by ballots

from the championship round only.

3) Power matching will provide that:

a) Pairings for the first round will be at random.

b) All teams are guaranteed to present each side of the case at least once.

c) Brackets will be determined by win/loss record. Sorting within brackets will be determined in the

following order: (1) win/loss record; (2) ballots; (3) total points; then (4) point spread. The team with

the highest number of ballots in the bracket will be matched with the team with the lowest number of

ballots in the bracket; the next highest with the next lowest, and so on until all teams are paired.

d) If there are an odd number of teams in a bracket, the team at the bottom of that bracket will be matched

with the top team from the next lower bracket.

e) Teams will not meet the same opponent twice.

f) To the greatest extent possible, teams will alternate side presentation in subsequent rounds. Bracket

integrity in power matching will supersede alternate side presentation.

9

Rule XXI: Completion of Score Sheets

1. Each scoring judge shall record a number of points (1-10) for each presentation of the round/trial. At the

end of the trial, each scoring judge shall total the sum of each team’s individual points and place this sum

in the column totals box. The team with the greater number of points wins that scoring judge’s

performance vote/ballot for that trial/round.

2. The presiding judge shall circle either Plaintiff/Prosecution or defense/defendant on his or her score

sheet/ballot to indicate which team the presiding judge feels gave the better performance during the

trial/round. The team that the presiding judge circles on their score sheet/ballot receives that presiding

judge’s performance vote/ballot for that trial/round.

Rule XXII: State Competition Team Advancement

Teams will be ranked based on the following criteria in the order listed:

1) Win/Loss Record – equals the number of rounds won or lost by a team.

2) Total Number of Ballots – equals the total number of judge’s votes a team earned in preceding

rounds.

3) Total Number of Points Accumulated in Each Round.

4) Point Spread Against Opponents – the point spread is the difference between the total points earned

by the team whose tie is being broken less the total points of that team’s opponent in each previous

round. The greatest sum of these point spreads will break the tie in favor of the team with that

largest cumulative point spread.

Rule XXIII: Effect of a Bye/Default

1. A “bye” becomes necessary when an odd number of teams are present for the tournament. For the purpose

of advancement and seeding, when a team draws a bye or wins by default, the winning team for that round

will be given a win and the number of ballots and points equal to the average of all winning team’s ballots

and points of that same round. The Mock Trial State Coordinator may, if time and space allow, arrange

for a “bye round” to allow teams drawing a bye to compete against one another in order to earn a true

score.

2. The Mock Trial State Coordinator has the discretion on how to handle a bye in all rounds of the tournament.

Rule XXIV: Eligibility

1. All students on a team must be enrolled in the same public or private school in the district for which they

are competing.

2. Each judicial circuit may send only one team to compete in the Florida High School Mock Trial State

Finals.

3. The Mock Trial State Coordinator reserves the right to enlist participation from each district and circuit.

10

Rule XXV: State Competition Awards

Trophies will be awarded to the top five teams. Four best witness awards and four best attorney awards

will also be presented. Both the presiding judge and the scoring judges will vote on the best witness

and best attorney awards. Additionally, two professionalism awards will be awarded based upon team

recommendations. Student certificates and school plaques will be presented to all participants.

Rule XXVI: Interpretation of State Competition Rules

1. All rules of competition for the Florida High School Mock Trial Competition, as set forth above, are

subject to the interpretation of the Advisory Committee of the Florida High School Mock Trial

Competition.

2. No exceptions are permitted at the competition site unless approval has been given by the Advisory

Committee prior to the competition.

3. The Advisory Committee and/or State Mock Trial Coordinator will serve as the final arbiter at the

competition site.

4. The Florida High School Mock Trial Competition Advisory Committee may invite additional circuit teams

to participate in the State Finals Competition if it determines, in its sole discretion, that doing so would

provide for diversity within the competition, would resolve disputes at the circuit level in a fair manner,

or would otherwise advance the goals of the competition and serve the students who have competed at the

circuit level.

Rule XXVII: Circuit Competitions

1. The State competition power matching and seeding system is optional for use during circuit competitions.

2. Team advancement procedures will be the responsibility of circuit coordinators.

3. Circuit coordinators should contact The Florida Law Related Education Association, Inc. for approved

alternate models.

11

SIMPLIFIED RULES OF EVIDENCE AND PROCEDURE

In American courts, elaborate rules are used to regulate the kind of proof (i.e., spoken testimony by

witnesses or physical evidence) that can be used in trials. These rules are designed to ensure that both parties

receive a fair hearing. Under the rules, any testimony or physical objects deemed irrelevant, incompetent,

untrustworthy, or unduly prejudicial may be kept out of the trial.

If it appears that a rule of evidence is being violated, an attorney may raise an objection to the judge.

Usually, the attorney stands and says, "I object, your honor," and then gives the reason for the objection.

Sometimes the attorney whose questions or actions are being objected to will then explain why he or she thinks

the rule was not violated. The judge then decides whether the rule has been violated and whether the testimony

or physical items must be excluded from the trial.

Official rules of evidence are quite complicated. They also differ depending on the kind of court where

the trial occurs. For purposes of this mock trial competition, the rules of evidence you will use have been made

less complicated than those used in actual courts. The ideas behind these simplified rules are similar to actual

rules of evidence.

A. Witness Examination/Questioning

1. Direct Examination

Attorneys call and question their own witnesses using direct as opposed to leading questions.

Example:

Elyse Roberts is called by her attorney to explain the events leading up to her filing suit against

Potomac County.

“Ms. Roberts, where do you work? How long have you worked there? Please describe your

working relationship with Mr. Kevin Murphy during the first month of employment. Why did you

meet with your supervisor, Fran Troy? Did you seek advice from a therapist during this time?”

Questions such as the above do not suggest the answer. Instead, they introduce a witness to a particular

area of importance, leaving the witness free to relate the facts. Obviously, the witness will have been

prepared to answer such questions in a particular way. But the question by its terms does not "lead" to

the answer.

a. Leading Questions

A leading question is one that suggests the answer. It does not simply call the witness' attention

to a subject. Rather, it indicates or tells the witness what the answer should be about that subject.

Leading questions are not permitted on direct examination, but questions on cross-examination

should be leading.

Examples:

“Mrs. Roberts, despite repeated invitations, you chose not to participate in office social

functions, correct?”

“Isn't it true, that due to all the stress from work you decided to go to a therapist?”

12

These questions are obviously in contrast to the direct examination questions in the preceding

section. Leading questions suggest the answer to the witness. This is not proper for direct

examination when a party is questioning its own witness.

b. Narration

While the purpose of direct examination is to get the witness to tell a story, the questions must ask

for specific information. The questions must not be so broad that the witness is allowed to wander

or "narrate" a whole story. At times, the witness' answer to a direct question may go beyond the

facts asked for by the question asked. Narrative questions are objectionable.

Example Narrative Question:

“Ms. Roberts, please tell the court about the events that contributed to your decision to sue

the county.”

Narrative Answer:

“It all began the night I found out that it was the county that was dumping on my land. At first

I thought it was my neighbors, but they denied having any part in the dumping. I decided to

watch my vacant lot and see if I could catch the person responsible. I drove down to my lot

the night of the 13th and parked in a place where I could see the lot but no one could see me…”

c. Scope of Witness Examination

Direct examination may cover all facts relevant to the case of which the witness has first-hand

knowledge.

d. Character

For the purpose of this mock trial, evidence about the character of a party may not be introduced

unless the person’s character is an issue in the case.

i. Methods of Proving Character (Section 90.405)

1. Reputation: When evidence of the character of a person or of a trait of his/her character is

admissible, proof may be made by testimony about his/her reputation.

2. Specific Instances of Conduct: When character or a trait of character of a person is an

essential element of a charge, claim, or defense, proof may be made of specific instances

of his/her conduct.

e. Refreshing Recollection

When a witness uses a writing or other item to refresh his/her memory while testifying, an adverse

party is entitled to have such writing or other item produced at the hearing to inspect it, to cross-

examine the witness thereon, and to introduce it, or in the case of writing, to introduce those

portions which relate to the testimony of the witness, in evidence.

2. Cross Examination (questioning the opposing side’s witnesses)

13

Cross-examination should involve leading questions. In fact, it is customary to present a witness with

a proposition and ask the witness to either agree or disagree. Thus, good cross-examination calls only

for a yes or no answer.

Examples:

“Mr. Roberts, in direct examination you testified that litigation was very stressful for you, correct?

In fact you were so stressed that you did work at home or called in sick. Isn't this true?”

“As an assistant district attorney, you knew that trying only three cases while settling 75 cases

was not a job performance your supervisor would rate highly, didn't you?”

“Thus given the stress you felt, your poor attendance at work and poor job performance, it was

not unusual for your supervisor to transfer you to another Bureau, was it?”

Leading questions are permissible on cross-examination. Questions tending to evoke a narrative

answer should be avoided.

a. Scope of Witness Examination

Cross-examination is not limited. Attorneys may ask questions of a particular witness that relate

to matters brought out by the opposing side on direct examination of that witness, matters relating

to the credibility of the witness, and additional matters otherwise admissible, that were not covered

on direct examination.

b. Impeachment

On cross-examination, the attorney may want to show the court that the witness should not be

believed. A witness' credibility may be impeached by showing evidence of the witness' character

and conduct, prior convictions, and prior inconsistent statements. If the witness testifies differently

from the information in their sworn affidavit, it may then be necessary to "impeach" the witness.

That is, the attorney will want to show that the witness previously said something that contradicts

the testimony on the stand.

i. Impeachment Procedure

Impeachment may be done by comparing what a witness says on the witness stand at trial to

what is contained in the witness' affidavit. By pointing out the differences between what a

witness now says and what the witness' affidavit says, the attorney shows that the witness has

contradicted himself or herself.

ii. Who May Impeach?

Any party, including the party calling the witness, may attack the credibility of a witness by:

1. Introducing statements of the witness which are inconsistent with his/her present

testimony;

2. Showing that the witness is biased;

14

3. Attaching the character of the witness in accordance with the state mock trial competition

rules of evidence and procedure;

4. Showing a defect of capacity, ability, or opportunity in the witness to observe, remember,

or recount the matters about which he/she testified; and

5. Proof by other witnesses that material facts are not as testified to by the witness being

impeached.

iii. Section 90.610 Conviction of Certain Crimes as Impeachment

A party may attack the credibility of any witness, including an accused, by evidence that the

witness has been convicted of a crime if the crime was punishable by death or imprisonment

in excess of 1 year under the law under which he was convicted, or if the crime involved

dishonesty or a false statement regardless of the punishment, with the following exceptions:

1. Evidence of any such conviction is inadmissible in a civil trial if it is so remote in time as

to have no bearing on the present character of the witness.

2. Evidence of juvenile adjudications is inadmissible under this subsection.

iv. Section 90.614 Prior Statements of Witness

1. When witness is examined concerning his prior written statement or concerning an oral

statement that has been reduced to writing, the court, on motion of the adverse party, shall

order the statement to be shown to the witness or its contents disclosed to him.

2. Extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement by a witness is inadmissible unless the

witness is first afforded an opportunity to explain or deny the prior statement and the

opposing party is afforded an opportunity to interrogate him on it, or the interests of justice

otherwise require. If a witness denies making or does not distinctly admit that he has made

the prior inconsistent statement, extrinsic evidence of such statement is admissible. This

subsection is not applicable to admissions of a party-opponent.

3. Re-direct and re-cross examination/questioning. If the credibility or reputation for

truthfulness of the witness has been attacked on cross-examination, the attorney whose

witness has been damaged may wish to ask several more questions. These questions should

be limited to the damage the attorney thinks has been done and should be phrased so as to

try to "save" the witness' truth-telling image in the eyes of the court. Re-direct examination

is limited to issues raised by the attorney on cross-examination. Re-cross examinations

follows re-direct examination but is limited to the issues raised on re-direct only and should

avoid repetition. The presiding judge may exercise reasonable control over questioning so

as to make questioning effective to ascertain truth, avoid needless waste of time, and

protect witnesses from harassment.

15

B. Objections

An attorney can object any time the opposing attorneys have violated the rules of evidence. The attorney

wishing to object should stand up and do so at the time of the violation. When an objection is made, the

judge may ask the reason for it. Then the judge may turn to the attorney whose question or action is being

objected to, and that attorney usually will have a chance to explain why the judge should not accept the

objection. The judge will then decide whether a question or answer must be discarded because it has violated

a rule of evidence or whether to allow the question or answer to be considered as evidence. The legal term

“objection sustained” means that the judge agrees with the objection and excludes the testimony or item

objected to. The legal term “objection overruled” means that the judge disagrees with the objection and allows

the testimony or item to be considered as evidence.

1. Standard Objections on Direct and Cross Examination

1. Irrelevant Evidence: “I object, your honor. This testimony is irrelevant to the facts of this case.”

2. Leading Questions: “Objection. Counsel is leading the witness.” Remember, this is only objectionable

when done on direct examination (Ref. Section A1.a).

3. Narrative Questions and Answers: may be objectionable (Ref. Section A1.b).

4. Improper Character Testimony: “Objection. The witness’ character or reputation has not been put in

issue or “Objection. Only the witness’ reputation/character for truthfulness is at issue here.”

5. Hearsay: “Objection. Counsel’s question/the witness’ answer is based on hearsay.” If the witness makes

a hearsay statement, the attorney should also say, “and I ask that the statement be stricken from the

record.”

6. Opinion: “Objection. Counsel is asking the witness to give an opinion.”

7. Lack of Personal Knowledge/Speculation: “Objection. The witness has no personal knowledge that

would enable him/her to answer this question.”

8. Lack of Proper Predicate: Exhibits will not be admitted into evidence until they have been identified

and shown to be authentic (unless identification and/or authenticity have been stipulated). Even after

proper predicate has been laid, the exhibits may still be objectionable due to relevance, hearsay, etc.

9. Ambiguous Questions: An attorney shall not ask questions that are capable of being understood in two

or more possible ways.

10. Non-responsive Answer: A witness’ answer is objectionable if it fails to respond to the question asked.

11. Argumentative Question: An attorney shall not ask a question which asks the witness to agree to a

conclusion drawn by the questioner without eliciting testimony as to new facts. However, the Court

may, in its discretion, allow limited use of argumentative questions on cross-examination.

12. Unfair Extrapolation/Beyond the Scope of the Statement of Facts

Attorneys shall not ask questions calling for information outside the scope of the case materials or

requesting an unfair extrapolation. Unfair extrapolations are best attacked through impeachment

and closing arguments and are to be dealt with in the course of the trial. A fair extrapolation is

16

one that is neutral.

Note: Fair extrapolations may be allowed, provided reasonable inference may be made from the

witness’s statement. If, in direct examination, an attorney asks a question which calls for

extrapolated information pivotal to the facts at issue, the information is subject to objection Outside

the Scope of the Problem. If in CROSS examination, an attorney asks for unknown information,

the witness may or may not respond, so long as any response is consistent with the witness’

statement or affidavit and does not materially affect the witness’ testimony.

13. Asked and Answered: “Objection. Your honor, the question has already been asked and answered.”

14. Objections Not Recognized in This Jurisdiction: An objection which is not contained in these materials

shall not be considered by the Court. However, if counsel responding to the objection does not point

out to the judge the application of this rule, the Court may exercise its discretion in considering such

objection.

Note: Attorneys should stand during objections, examinations, and statements. No objections should

be made during opening/closing statements but afterwards the attorneys may indicate what the

objection would have been. The opposing counsel should raise his/her hand to be recognized by the

judge and may say, “If I had been permitted to object during closing arguments, I would have objected

to the opposing team’s statement that .” The presiding judge will not rule on this objection

individually and no rebuttal from the opposing team will be heard.

15. Opinions of Witnesses

1. Expert Opinion

1. Section 90.702 Testimony by Experts

If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact in

understanding the evidence or in determining a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert

by knowledge, skill, experience, training or education may testify about it in the form of an

opinion; however, the opinion is admissible only if it can be applied to evidence at trial.

2. Section 90.703 Opinions on Ultimate Issue

Testimony in the form of an opinion or inference otherwise admissible is not objectionable

because it included an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact.

3. Section 90.704 Basis of Opinion Testimony by Experts

The facts or data upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived

by, or made known to, him at or before the trial. If the facts or data are of a type reasonably

relied upon by experts in the subject to support the opinion expressed, the facts or data need

not be admissible in evidence.

4. Expert Opinion (additional information)

An expert shall not express an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused.

2. Lay Opinion

17

1. Section 90.701 Opinion Testimony of Lay Witnesses

If a witness is not testifying as an expert, his testimony about what he perceived may be in the

form of inference and opinion when:

1. The witness cannot readily, and with equal accuracy and adequacy, communicate what

he has perceived to the trier of fact without testifying in terms of inferences or opinions

and his use of inferences or opinions will not mislead the trier of fact to the prejudice of

the objecting party; and

2. The opinions and inferences do not require a special knowledge, skill, experience, or

training.

2. Lay Opinion (additional information)

All witnesses may offer opinions based on the common experience of laypersons in the

community and of which the witnesses have first-hand knowledge. A lay opinion may also

be obtained. For example, Sandy Yu, as the personnel director, would know of other

complaints of sexual harassment in the office and any formal reprimands, even though he is

not an expert in sexual harassment. They may be asked questions within that range of

experience. No witness, not even an expert, may give an opinion about how the case should

be decided.

The cross-examination of opinions proceeds much like the cross-examination of any witness.

Questions, as indicated above, may be based upon the prior statement of the witness.

Inconsistencies may be shown. In addition, the witness may be asked whether he or she has

been employed by any party, to show bias or interest. Or a witness giving an opinion may be

asked the limits of certainty in that opinion, as follows:

“Dr. Isaacs, please read this portion of your sworn statement to the court.”

"I have studied the records of this case, and have conducted two one-hour interviews with

Elyse Roberts on March 29 and 31st. In those interviews, she described to me her family

history, her work environment, the actions of her co-workers and supervisor and her

resulting feelings."

“This is your statement, is it not, Dr. Isaacs? Ms. Roberts selected you because of your

expertise in sexual harassment in the workplace, correct? During your two-hour interview

you were only concerned with evaluating Ms. Roberts’ working environment and no other

psychological factors that may have caused her problems. Thus you really can't say that

Ms. Roberts' difficulty on the job was only caused by the actions of Mr. Murphy, can you?”

The point of these questions is not to discredit the witness. Rather, the objective is simply to

treat the witness as a responsible professional who will acknowledge the limits of her or his

expertise and testimony. If the witness refuses to acknowledge those limits, the witness then

is discredited.

It is always important in cross-examination to avoid arguing with the witness. It is particularly

important with an expert. Thus, the cross-examination should be carefully constructed to call

only for facts or to draw upon statements the witness has already made.

18

3. Lack of Personal Knowledge

A witness may not testify to any matter of which the witness has no personal knowledge. The legal

term for testimony of which the witness has no personal knowledge is "incompetent."

16. Relevance of Testimony and Physical Objects

Generally, only relevant testimony may be presented. Relevant evidence is physical evidence and

testimony that makes a fact that is important to the case more or less probable than the fact would be

without the evidence. However, if the relevant evidence is unfairly prejudicial, may confuse the issues,

or is a waste of time, it may be excluded by the court. Such relevant but excludable evidence may be

testimony, physical evidence, or demonstrations that have no direct bearing on the issues of the case

or do not make the issues clearer.

1. Introduction of Documents, Exhibits, Items, and Other Physical Objects Into Evidence

There is a special procedure for introducing physical evidence during a trial. The physical

evidence must be relevant to the case, and the attorney must be prepared to its use on that basis.

Below are the basic steps to use when introducing a physical object or document for identification

and/or use as evidence.

1. Show exhibit and have it marked by the judge. Say “Your Honor, I ask that this ___ be marked

for identification as Plaintiff’s/Defendant’s Exhibit No. ___”

2. Show the exhibit to opposing counsel for possible objection. Ask the witness to identify the

exhibit. “I now hand you what is marked as Exhibit No. 1. Do you recognize this document?”

3. At this point the attorney may proceed to ask the witness a series of questions about the exhibit.

4. If the attorney wishes to place the document into evidence, say, “Your Honor, I offer this ____

marked as Plaintiff's/Defendant's Exhibit No. 1 into evidence and ask the Court to so admit it.”

Court: “Is there any objection?”

Opposing Counsel: “No, your Honor.” or “Yes, your Honor.” (then state objection).

Court: “Plaintiff's/Defendant's Exhibit No. 1 is (is not) admitted.”

NOTE: A witness may be asked questions about his/her statement without its introduction into

evidence; but to read from it or submit it to the judge, it must first be admitted into evidence. Exhibits

can be pre-marked.

17. Hearsay and Exceptions to this Ruling

1. What is Hearsay?

Hearsay evidence is normally excluded from a trial because it is deemed untrustworthy. “Hearsay”

is a statement other than one made by the witness testifying at the trial, offered in evidence to

prove that the matter asserted in the statement is true. An example of hearsay is a witness testifying

that he heard another person saying something about the facts in the case. The reason that hearsay

19

is untrustworthy is because the opposing side has no way of testing the credibility of the out-of-

court statement or the person who supposedly made the statement. Thus, for example, the

following questions would be objectionable as “hearsay” if you are trying to prove that the color

of the door was red:

“Mr. Edwards what color did Bob say the door was?”

This is hearsay. Mr. Edwards is using Bob's statement for him to prove the color of the door.

Instead, Bob or someone who saw the door needs to be called to testify as to the color of the door.

2. Reasons for Prohibiting Hearsay

Our legal system is designed to promote the discovery of truth in a fair way. One way it seeks to

accomplish this goal is by ensuring that the evidence presented in court is “reliable”; that is, we

can be fairly certain the evidence is true. Hearsay evidence is said to be “unreliable” for four

reasons:

1. The hearsay statement might be distorted or misinterpreted by the witness relating it in court.

2. The hearsay statement is not made in court and is not made under oath

3. The hearsay statement is not made in court, and the person who made it cannot be observed by

the judge or jury (this is important because the judge or jury should be allowed to observe a

witness' behavior and evaluate his/her credibility).

4. The hearsay statement is not made in court and the person who made it cannot be challenged

by cross-examination.

3. When Can Hearsay Evidence Be Admitted?

Although hearsay is generally not admissible, there are certain out-of-court statements that are treated

as not being hearsay, and there are out-of-court statements that are allowed into evidence as exceptions

to the rule prohibiting hearsay.

Statements that are not hearsay are prior statements made by the witness himself and admissions made

by a party opponent.

1. Exceptions

Hearsay is not admissible, except as provided by these rules. For purposes of this mock trial,

the following exceptions to the hearsay rule will be allowed; even though the declarant is

available as a witness.

1. Spontaneous Statement

A statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while the declarant

perceived the event or condition, or immediately thereafter, except when such statement is

made under circumstances that indicate its lack of trustworthiness.

2. Excited Utterance

20

A statement or excited utterance relating to a startling event or condition made while the

declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition.

3. Medical Statements

Statements made for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment by a person seeking

the diagnosis, or made by an individual who has knowledge of the facts and is legally

responsible for the person who is unable to communicate the facts, which statements

describe medical history, past or present symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the inception or

general character of the cause or external source thereof, insofar as reasonably pertinent to

diagnosis or treatment.

4. Recorded Recollection

A memorandum or record concerning a matter about which a witness once had knowledge

but now has insufficient recollection to enable the witness to testify fully and accurately,

shown to have been made by the witness when the matter was fresh in his memory and to

reflect that knowledge correctly. A party may read into evidence a memorandum or record

when it is admitted, but no such memorandum or record is admissible as an exhibit unless

offered by an adverse party.

5. Records of a Regularly Conducted Activity

1. A memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, in any form, of acts, events,

conditions, opinion, or diagnosis, made at or near the time by, or from information

transmitted by, a person with knowledge, if kept in the course of a regularly conducted

business activity and if it was the regular practice of that business activity to make such

memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, all as shown by testimony of the

custodian or other qualified witness, unless the sources of information or other

circumstances show lack of trustworthiness. The term “business” as used in this

paragraph includes a business, institution, association, profession, occupation, and

calling for every kind, whether or not conducted for profit.

2. No evidence in the form of an opinion or diagnosis is admissible under paragraph (a)

unless such opinion or diagnosis would otherwise be admissible if the person whose

opinion is recorded were to testify to the opinion directly.

6. Learned Treatises

To the extent called to the attention of an expert witness upon cross examination or relied

upon by the expert witness in direct examination, statements contained in public treatises,

periodicals or pamphlets on a subject of history, medicine, or other science or art,

established as a reliable authority by the testimony or admission of the witness, or by other

expert testimony, or by judicial notice.

7. Then Existing Mental, Emotional, or Physical Condition

1. A statement of the declarant’s then existing state of mind, emotion, or physical

sensation, including a statement of intent, plan, motive, design, mental feeling, pain, or

bodily health, when such evidence is offered to:

21

1. Prove the declarant’s state of mind, emotion, or physical sensation at that time

or at any other time when such state is an issue in the action.

2. Prove or explain acts of subsequent conduct of the declarant.

2. However, this subsection does not make admissible:

1. An after-the-fact statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered

or believed, unless such a statement relates to the execution, revocation,

identification, or terms of the declarant's will.

2. A statement made under circumstances that indicate its lack of trustworthiness.

C. Trial Motions

No trial motions are allowed except for special jury instructions as permitted in these case

materials.

Examples:

Directed verdict, dismissal, acquittal, motion in limine, motion to sequester witnesses.

Exception:

Motion for Recess may only be used in emergency situations.

D. Attorney Demeanor

**See Code of Ethical Conduct

Note: Please refer to Official Case Materials for any specific additions relative to this trial.

22

GUIDELINES FOR TEACHER COACHES

A. Role of the Teacher Coach

The teacher coach is expected to help the team members decide which students will play which parts in the mock

trial and to assist the students in playing those roles. As part of the sizeable responsibility of acting as team

coaches, teachers are responsible for the following areas:

1. Rules of the Program: All teachers and teams are expected to adhere to the rules, facts and all other materials

provided in the current Mock Trial Competition Case Materials. Therefore, please make sure you are familiar

with the Competition rules.

2. Role Assignments: Team members should be strongly encouraged to select roles based on their interests and

abilities and not on the basis of any gender or cultural stereotypes which might be drawn from the

characterizations in the fact pattern.

3. Team Preparation: Attorneys will also help coach each team. Teams should prepare both sides of the case

and are strongly urged to arrange and conduct preliminary mock trials with other teams prior to competing in the

district and circuit competition. Preliminary trials require only one attorney or judge to act as the presiding judge,

as it is not necessary to award points to the teams during these practice rounds.

4. Education: Education of the students is the primary goal of the Mock Trial Competition. Healthy

competition helps to achieve this goal, but teachers are reminded of their responsibility to keep the competitive

spirit at a reasonable level. The reality of the adversarial system is that one party wins and the other loses, and

teachers should be sure to prepare their teams to be ready to accept either outcome in a mature manner. Teachers

can help prepare students for either outcome by placing the highest value on excellent preparation and

presentation, rather than on winning or losing the trial.

5. Observers: Other classes, parents, and friends of the participants are welcome to attend the trials. However,

please note that space in the courtroom is limited. The presiding judge may ask overflow observers to leave

the courtroom. All observers must be seated during the trial.

6. Arrival Times: Teachers are responsible for getting their teams to the assigned courtroom 15 minutes prior

to the starting time of each trial.

23

GUIDELINES FOR ATTORNEY COACHES

1. Much as you will want to help the students, point them in the right direction, and give them the benefit of

your experience, remember that the students will develop a better understanding of the case and learn

more from the experience if the attorney coaches do not dominate the preparation phase of the tournament.

The preparation phase of the contest is intended to be a cooperative effort of students, teacher and attorney

coaches.

2. Avoid (even the appearance of) “talking down” to students and/or stifling discussion through the use of

complicated “legalese.”

3. The first session with a student team should be devoted to the following tasks:

1. Answering questions that students may have concerning general trial practices;

2. Explaining the reasons for the sequence of events/procedures found in a trial;

3. Listening to the students’ approach to the assigned case; and

4. Emphasizing the key points, such as the elements to be proved, and the relevance and importance

of available legal authority.

4. Subsequent sessions with students should center on the development of proper questioning techniques by

the student attorneys and sound testimony by the witnesses. Here an attorney can best serve as a

constructive observer and teacher...listening, suggesting and demonstrating to the team.

5. Attorney coaches should not prepare opening statements, closing statements, or questions for the students.

Students should be encouraged to do as much of their own preparation as possible.

24

Florida High School Mock Trial Competition

SCORE SHEET/BALLOT

P = Prosecution:__________________________ D = Defense:____________________________

(Team Code) (Team Code) Date:______________________ Round: (circle one) 1 2 3 4 F

Using a scale of 1 to 10, rate the P and D in the categories below.

Do NOT use fractional points. Please use a ballpoint pen. Not Effective Fair Good Excellent Outstanding

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Score Sheet/ Ballot P D

Opening Statement (________) (________)

Prosecution’s First Witness Direct Examination

Witness Presentation

(________)

(________)

Cross Examination

(________)

Prosecution’s Second Witness Direct Examination

Witness Presentation

(________)

(________)

Cross Examination

(________)

Prosecution’s Third Witness Direct Examination

Witness Presentation

(________)

(________) Cross Examination

(________)

Defense’s First Witness

Cross Examination

(________)

Direct Examination

Witness Presentation

(________)

(________)

Defense’s Second Witness

Cross Examination

(________)

Direct Examination

Witness Presentation

(________)

(________)

Defense’s Third Witness

Cross Examination

(________)

Direct Examination

Witness Presentation

(________)

(________)

Closing Argument (________) (________)

Ethical Conduct (________) (________)

Team Performance (________) (________)

Column Totals: DO NOT TIE TEAMS (________) (________)

Note: Any errors in ADDITION will be corrected by score room staff. Please review your individual scores and return to trial

coordinator.

_______________________________________

Judge’s Signature

25

Florida High School Mock Trial Competition EXPLANATION OF RATINGS USED ON THE SCORE SHEET/BALLOT

Participants will be rated in the categories on the ballot on a scale of 1-10 points (10 being the highest), according to their roles in the

trial. The Scoring Judges are scoring STUDENT PRESENTATION in each category. The Scoring Judges are NOT scoring the legal

merits of the case. Each category is to be evaluated separately and fractional points ARE NOT to be awarded. One team MUST be

awarded more total points than the other. The team winning the majority of the ballots shall win the round.

Judging panels also may recognize outstanding individual presentations by selecting one MOST EFFECTIVE ATTORNEY and/or

one MOST EFFECTIVE WITNESS per round. The decision must be representative of the majority of the panel members.

Judges may NOT disclose the score sheet/ballot results or the identities of the Most Effective Attorney and/or Witness to anyone other

than the mock trial coordinator. Sign your score sheet/ballot before turning it over to the presiding judge on your panel. DO NOT

ANNOUNCE SCORES OR RESULTS TO THE TEAMS DURING THE CRITIQUE!

POINT(S) PERFORMANCE CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING STUDENT PERFORMANCE

1-2 Not Effective

1. Exhibits lack of preparation/understanding of the case materials.

2. Communication unclear, disorganized, and ineffective.

3. Unsure of self, does not think well on feet, depends heavily on

notes.

3-4 Fair

1. Exhibits minimal preparation/understanding of the case

materials.

2. Communication minimally clear and organized, but lacking in

fluency and persuasiveness.

3. Minimally self-assured, but lacks confidence under pressure.

5-6 Good

1. Exhibits adequate preparation/understanding of the case

materials.

2. Communications are clear and understandable, but could be

stronger in fluency and persuasiveness.

3. Generally self-assured, reads from notes very little.

7-8 Excellent

1. Exhibits mastery of the case materials.

2. Communication is clear, organized, fluent and persuasive.

3. Thinks well on feet, poised under pressure, does not read from

notes.

9-10 Outstanding 1. Superior in qualities listed for 7-8 points' performance.

26

Florida High School Mock Trial Competition

PRESIDING JUDGE BALLOT

Prosecution: ___________________ Defense: ___________________

(Team Code) (Team Code)

Round#: _____________

Please make your decision, offer some written comments, and hand in this score sheet

to the Timekeeper as soon as possible. Thank you for participating.

I. Performance Evaluation - MANDATORY

Performance Decision: In my opinion the better mock trial performance was shown

by the

PROSECUTION / DEFENSE (Circle One)

This is a team performance score based on the clarity and effectiveness of arguments

presented and the professional demeanor exhibited by team members.

Note: Do not announce your performance decision.

II. Comments

_________________________________________________

Judge’s Signature & Date

27

Florida High School Mock Trial Competition

MOST EFFECTIVE ATTORNEY FORM

(Mandatory)

This form is to be completed by All Judges

_____________________________________

Date of Competition Round

____________________________________

Enter Team Code

____________________________________

Round

ATTORNEY

I wish to award the following team

member the title of

MOST EFFECTIVE

ATTORNEY For this round:

____________________________ Name of Team Member from Team Roster

Prosecution’s or Defense’s Attorney

(Circle One)

____________________________________________________________

Judge’s Signature

28

Florida High School Mock Trial Competition

MOST EFFECTIVE WITNESS FORM

(Mandatory)

This form is to be completed by All Judges

_____________________________________

Date of Competition Round

____________________________________

Enter Team Code

____________________________________

Round

WITNESS

I wish to award the following team

member the title of

MOST EFFECTIVE

WITNESS For this round:

____________________________ Name of Team Member from Team Roster

Prosecution’s or Defense’s Witness

(Circle One)

____________________________________________________________

Judge’s Signature

29

Florida High School Mock Trial Competition

LEGAL PROFESSIONALISM AWARD BALLOT

Teachers: Please complete this ballot as your official recommendation for the Legal Professionalism Award. Only one entry per school will be

accepted. You may wish to discuss with your students their feelings about the professionalism, spirit, and ethical conduct of other teams to aid in

your decision. Please refer to the definition and quotes about professionalism.

Teams should NOT nominate themselves.

Recommendation #1: _________________________________________________

Comments:

Recommendation #2: _________________________________________________

Comments:

Submitted By:

School:

District:

Signature:

30

Florida High School Mock Trial Competition

COMPLAINT FORM

(Please Print)

Date:_______________

Person Lodging Dispute/Complaint:_____________________________

Affiliated With: (Enter Team Code Only)

Nature of Dispute/Complaint:

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

NOTE: This form may be used to inform the Mock Trial Coordinator and Advisory

Committee of any disputes or recommendations relating to the competition including

complaints regarding judges. Please be specific regarding the nature of the dispute.

This form in no way replaces the dispute resolution process as outlined in the rules.

___________________________________________

Signature

*Return to Box at Information Desk in Courthouse*

31

Florida High School Mock Trial Competition

TEAM DISPUTE FORM

Date: Round (Circle one) 1 2 3 4 Final

Prosecution: Defense: ___________________________

(Team Code) (Team Code) TEAM LODGING DISPUTE: _____________________________ (Enter Team Code)

Grounds for Dispute:

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

Initials of Team Spokesperson: _______ Time Dispute presented to Presiding Judge:__________

Hearing decision of Presiding Judge (Circle one): GRANT / DENY Initials of Judge: ________

Reason(s) for Denying Hearing or Response of Opposing Team:

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

Initials of Opposing Team's Spokesperson: __________

Presiding Judge's Notes from Hearing:

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

Decision of Presiding Judge Regarding Dispute (Circle one): Refer to Panel/Not Refer to Panel

Reason(s) for Presiding Judge's Decision:

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________ This form must be returned to the Mock Trial Coordinator along with the score sheets of the

Scoring Judges and the ballot of the Presiding Judge.

_______________ Signature of Presiding Judge

32

Florida High School Mock Trial Competition

TEAM ROSTER FORM

Each Prosecution and Defense team should complete this sheet in triplicate. Copies are to be

made available to the judging panel (3 copies) before each round. The team code can be filled

in after registration at the competition site.

Note: Do not place team or attorney coach or teacher coach identifying information on the forms used

in competition rounds.

Please print or type

________________

Team Code

In this round, students listed on this roster represent the: (Circle One)

Prosecution Defense

Names of Team Attorneys Identify Tasks to be Presented

_____________________________

_____________________________

_____________________________

Names of Team Witnesses Identify Roles to be Performed

_____________________________

_____________________________

_____________________________

33

PROFESSIONALISM

The Florida Bar’s Standing Committee on Professionalism’s working definition of

professionalism:

Professionalism is the pursuit of practice of the highest ideals and tenets of the legal

profession. It embraces far more than simply complying with the minimal standards of

professional conduct. The essential ingredients of professionalism are character,

competence, and commitment.

Other thoughts on professionalism:

“...To me, the essence of professionalism is a commitment to develop one’s skills and to

apply that responsibility to the problems at hand. Professionalism requires adherence to the

highest ethical standards of conduct and willingness to subordinate narrow self-interest in pursuit

of the more fundamental goal of public service. Because of the tremendous power they wield in

our system, lawyers must never forget that their duty to serve their clients fairly and skillfully takes

priority over the personal accumulation of wealth. At the same time, lawyers must temper bold

advocacy for their clients with a sense of responsibility to the larger legal system which strives,

however imperfectly, to provide justice for all.”

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor

“Professionalism is no more, and no less, than conducting one’s self at all times in such a

manner as to demonstrate complete candor, honesty, and courtesy in all relationships with clients,

associates, courts, and the general public. It is the personification of the accepted standard of

conduct so long recognized and observed by able lawyers throughout history, that a lawyer’s word

is his bond. It encompasses the fundamental belief that a lawyer’s primary obligation is to serve

his or her client’s interests faithfully and completely, with compensation only a secondary concern,

and with ultimate justice as the final goal.”

Don Jackson, former chair of the

Senior Lawyer Division of the

American Bar Association

34

OATH OF ADMISSION TO THE FLORIDA BAR

The general principles which should ever control the lawyer in the practice of the legal

profession are clearly set forth in the following oath of admission to the Bar, which the lawyer is

sworn on admission to obey and for the willful violation to which disbarment may be had.

"I do solemnly swear:

"I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Florida;

"I will maintain the respect due to courts of justice and judicial officers;

"I will not counsel or maintain any suit or proceedings which shall appear to me to be unjust, nor

any defense except such as I believe to be honestly debatable under the law of the land;

"I will employ for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to me such means only as are

consistent with truth and honor, and will never seek to mislead the judge or jury by any artifice

or false statement of fact or law;

"I will maintain the confidence and preserve inviolate the secrets of my clients, and will accept

no compensation in connection with their business except from them or with their knowledge

and approval;

"To opposing parties and their counsel, I pledge fairness, integrity, and civility, not only in court,

but also in all written and oral communications;

"I will abstain from all offensive personality and advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or

reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which I am

charged;

"I will never reject, from any consideration personal to myself, the cause of the defenseless or

oppressed, or delay anyone's cause for lucre or malice. So help me God."